Silvia Agnes Kym

The defendant, 961557 Ontario Ltd., operating as "The Crooked Cue" was charged with failing to comply with an emergency order under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act for operating an indoor dining area during COVID-19 restrictions.

The prosecution alleged the establishment was not an "outdoor dining area" as required by O. Reg. 263/20.

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily because no clear, written regulatory order was established, and the interpretation of "outdoor dining area" by public health officials was subjective, inconsistent, and based on fluid guidelines rather than the regulation's plain wording.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant, 961557 Ontario Ltd. operating as "The Crooked Cue" brought a s.11(b) Charter motion for a stay of proceedings due to inordinate delay in a Provincial Offences Act charge.

The court calculated the total delay, subtracted periods attributable to defence conduct (including a largely unsuccessful disclosure motion, issues with setting trial dates, failure to perfect the s.11(b) motion, a directed verdict motion, and a motion to take a view), and accounted for COVID-19 as an exceptional circumstance.

The net delay, after deductions, fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court matters.

The defendant failed to demonstrate the remaining delay was unreasonable or that they took meaningful steps to expedite the case.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant, 961557 Ontario Ltd. (The Crooked Cue), was charged with failing to comply with an emergency order by operating an indoor dining area during Stage 2 COVID-19 closures, which only permitted outdoor dining.

The defendant brought a motion for non-suit, arguing the prosecution failed to adduce evidence proving the establishment was not an outdoor dining area.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there was sufficient admissible evidence, direct and circumstantial, which if believed, could reasonably support a finding of guilt.

The court clarified that the test for a non-suit motion does not permit weighing evidence or assessing credibility, distinguishing it from the s.11(b) analysis for delay under R. v. Jordan.