V. Bubrin

The defendant was charged with speeding (89 km/h in a 60 km/h zone) and driving a motor vehicle with no currently validated permit.

The Crown proved the speeding charge through officer testimony regarding laser speed measurement device operation and calibration.

The defendant was convicted of speeding.

The permit charge was dismissed because Ontario Regulation 628/07 makes affixing validation evidence to the number plate mandatory but affixing it to the ownership document discretionary, rendering the charge invalid.

The defendant, owner and director of a retail tobacco store, was charged with two offences under the Smoke Free Ontario Act: selling tobacco to a person under 19 years old and selling tobacco to a person appearing to be under 25 without verifying identification.

A municipal test shopper, aged 17, purchased cigarettes from the defendant's employee without being asked for identification.

The defendant raised a pre-trial objection regarding the appropriateness of charging the individual rather than the corporation, which was rejected.

At trial, the defendant advanced a due diligence defence, arguing he had trained his staff and implemented compliance measures.

The court found the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant failed to establish due diligence on a balance of probabilities.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts and fined $1,000 on each count.

The defendant was charged under the Child and Family Services Act with leaving her five-year-old child unattended.

The child ran into traffic on St. Clair Avenue West in Toronto and was struck by a vehicle.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the defendant had charge of the child and left her unattended.

The court excluded the defendant's statement to police as involuntary due to lack of proper caution and misleading circumstances.

Although the court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to deny a directed verdict motion, it ultimately acquitted the defendant, finding the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to unexplained gaps in the evidence, including the presence of an unidentified third party at the scene and an untraced vehicle from which the child may have emerged.

A post-secondary student charged with failing to comply with conditions of use of fare media under TTC Bylaw Number 1, section 2.3(b), for using a student Metropass without the required TTC Post-Secondary Student Photo ID.

The defendant was eligible for the reduced student fare but did not possess the mandatory photo identification at the time of entry.

The court distinguished between eligibility and compliance, finding that while the defendant may have been eligible, he was not in compliance with the conditions of use.

The court classified the offence as one of absolute liability, rejecting the defence of due diligence based on the precise language of the bylaw and accompanying conditions.

The defendant was charged with willfully failing to inform the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of a material change in circumstances in connection with his entitlement to benefits within 10 days after the change occurred, contrary to section 149(2) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The charge covered the period between October 11, 2010, and September 1, 2011.

The prosecution alleged that the defendant was gainfully employed and had demonstrated improved physical and psychological functioning, which constituted material changes he failed to report.

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed it.

The defendant, Steven Blondin, pleaded guilty to 112 charges of failing to comply with Orders to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Blondin was the sole director of six Ontario corporations that failed to pay wages totalling approximately $142,000 to 61 employees between March 2007 and October 2009.

The court imposed a fine of $40,000 against Blondin personally and $240,000 against his six corporations collectively, along with a custodial sentence of three months to be served concurrently.

Restitution orders were issued separately.

The defendant's request for house arrest as an alternative to imprisonment was denied as the Provincial Offences Act does not provide for conditional sentences.