Vincenzo Rondinelli

The Ontario Court of Justice considered a joint appeal by the City of Toronto challenging common law stays of proceedings entered by a Justice of the Peace in four separate Highway Traffic Act cases.

The stays were imposed due to persistent audio difficulties during remote Zoom hearings, which the Justice of the Peace found compromised the fairness of trials.

The Court held that the threshold for abuse of process was not met, as there was no prosecutorial misconduct, no prejudice to the accused’s right to a fair trial or the integrity of the justice system, and alternative remedies were available.

The Justice of the Peace erred by issuing stays without considering individual circumstances and failing to explore less drastic solutions such as in-person attendance or adjournment under s. 83.1(4) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The stays were left undisturbed as the City did not seek re-prosecution.

The City of Toronto appealed the decision of Justice of the Peace N. Tahiri who imposed fines below the statutory minimum for red light camera offences under s. 144(18.1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal focused on whether the Justice of the Peace properly applied s. 59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act, which allows courts to impose fines below the minimum in exceptional circumstances.

The Ontario Court of Justice found that the Justice of the Peace failed to properly apply the statutory test, relying instead on docket management considerations without addressing the required legal criteria or inquiring into defendants' personal circumstances.

The Court held that the discretion under s. 59(2) must be exercised judicially, with reasons explaining the decision, and that the fines were imposed arbitrarily.

The appeal was allowed, but the fines remained unchanged at the City's request.

The City of Toronto appealed the acquittal of 2694605 Ontario Inc. on charges under the Cannabis Control Act (CCA) for knowingly permitting an illegal cannabis dispensary.

The Justice of the Peace had found the respondent met the statutory defence by taking "reasonable measures" to prevent the activity.

The City argued that "reasonable measures" should be interpreted as "all reasonable steps," akin to a due diligence standard.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that "reasonable measures" is a lower standard than "all reasonable steps," based on a plain reading of the CCA and comparison with other statutes like the Criminal Code and Liquor Licence Act.

The court found the respondent's actions, including attempts to evict tenants and change locks, were reasonable given the circumstances.

The appellant, Baron Alloway, appealed two Highway Traffic Act tickets after being deemed not to dispute them due to non-attendance at a rescheduled trial.

He claimed he never received the Revised Notice of Trial.

The court considered Section 87(2) of the Provincial Offences Act, which establishes a rebuttable presumption of mail delivery.

The appellant provided an affidavit and testified unequivocally that he did not receive the notice, and this evidence remained uncontradicted.

The court found the presumption rebutted and allowed the appeal, ordering a new trial.

The appellant, a novice driver, appealed a 30-day driver's license suspension incurred after pre-paying a speeding ticket.

He argued he was unaware of the suspension as a direct consequence of the plea.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that such a suspension for a novice driver is a direct penalty, not a collateral consequence requiring a *Wong* analysis.

The decision emphasized the heightened duty of novice drivers to inform themselves of driving regulations and consequences, noting readily available information sources.

The appellant sought to set aside his de facto guilty plea for using a hand-held wireless communication device while driving, arguing he was unaware of the resulting 3-day driver's licence suspension.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the licence suspension is a direct consequence of the Highway Traffic Act offence, not a "legally relevant collateral consequence" as defined in criminal law (R. v. Wong).

The court emphasized that licensed drivers are expected to ascertain the direct penalties for provincial offences and that the information was readily available.

The appellant sought to set aside two de facto guilty pleas for speeding tickets, arguing he was unaware of the consequences on demerit points and insurance coverage.

The court considered whether demerit points and insurance changes constitute "legally relevant collateral consequences" for an informed plea in provincial offence matters.

The court held that these are generally not legally relevant collateral consequences.

Applying the Wong analysis in the alternative, the court found the appeals failed the objective test for sufficiently serious undisclosed information.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The decision also provides guidance on affidavit requirements for future appeals seeking to vacate guilty pleas.

The appellant appealed a denied reopening of a deemed conviction for disobeying a stop sign, arguing inability to respond due to COVID-19 court closures.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that their inability to respond was "through no personal fault" as required by the Provincial Offences Act.

The court emphasized that the pandemic did not serve as a blanket excuse for inaction, especially given available online services, and stressed the need for appellants to provide specific details and supporting affidavits for such claims.

This appeal concerned a Part I Provincial Offences Act conviction where the appellant sought a new trial due to a paralegal agent's error leading to a conviction without trial.

The court emphasized the "ends of justice" test under s. 138(1) of the POA, requiring sufficient evidence, typically through affidavits from both the appellant and the paralegal, detailing the error, its discovery, client notification, and any resulting prejudice.

The court criticized the "culture of complacency" among some paralegal agents in provincial offences courts and dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to provide any evidence (e.g., an affidavit) to support their claim, despite the paralegal's error.

The Ministry of Labour charged Ya Ya Foods Corp. with three offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a fatal incident where a worker fell from an elevated platform.

The central issue at trial was whether Ya Ya Foods qualified as a "constructor" under the Act, as the charges were laid against them in that capacity.

Applying the "control test," the court found that the deceased worker, Melvin Joyner, had the most control over the project at the time of the incident, not Ya Ya Foods.

The court noted the lack of a clear constructor designation at the outset and the difficulties of retrospective role assignment.

Consequently, the Ministry failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ya Ya Foods was the constructor, and all charges were dismissed.

The defendant, 1806369 Alberta Limited (ReviveYou Media), pleaded guilty to one count of false or misleading representations under s. 52(1) of the Competition Act.

The company operated a 'subscription trap' scheme involving diet pills, where consumers were led to believe they were signing up for a 'risk-free trial' with only a small shipping fee, but were in fact enrolled in recurring monthly subscriptions.

The scheme generated approximately $19.6 million USD in sales.

The court accepted a joint submission from counsel, imposing a $15 million fine and a 10-year prohibition order under s. 34(1) of the Competition Act, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation despite the defendant's inability to pay the full amount.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking crack cocaine involving the sale of 1.44 grams to an undercover officer for $120.

The Crown sought 90 days' intermittent imprisonment plus two years' probation, while the defence sought a suspended sentence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years' probation, finding that significant mitigating circumstances, including the accused's status as a first-time offender, genuine remorse, positive rehabilitation efforts, and history of severe trauma, warranted a non-custodial approach.

The court found that collateral consequences of conviction and probation conditions adequately addressed principles of deterrence and denunciation.

Following a trial, the accused was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon.

The assault with a weapon count was stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation, while the defence sought an absolute discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with one year of probation, finding that while the assault was serious—involving the use of a glass in a public bar setting—the accused's youth, first-time offender status, and significant rehabilitative efforts warranted a discharge rather than a conviction.

The court declined to impose a section 110 weapons prohibition order.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon after striking the complainant on the back of the head with a drinking glass at a bar.

The accused claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while there was an air of reality to the self-defence claim based on the accused's evidence regarding her anxiety and prior abusive relationships, the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the force used was not reasonable in the circumstances.

The accused's response was grossly disproportionate to the threat posed.

The accused was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm, with the assault with a weapon charge stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

Sentencing was adjourned.