Happy Autumn !, here are a few cases that may be of interest to you .
Halton ( Regional Municipality ) v . Palumbo , 2023 ONCJ 225
Appeal - Health Protection and Promotion Act - Improper Maintenance of Potentially Hazardous Foods - Strict or Absolute Liability Offence
A refrigerator containing food products was not kept at the correct temperature . The justice of the Peace found the Respondent not guilty applying the strict liability standard indicating the restaurant had exercised due diligence when the manager found the refrigerator malfunctioning and shut down the line ensuring no spoiled food was served to the public . The City of Halton ( Appellant ) appealed seeking that the absolute liability standard should have been applied .
S . 27 ( 1 ) of Reg . 493 / 17 : Potentially hazardous food shall be distributed , maintained , stored , transported , displayed , sold , and offered for sale only under conditions in which the internal temperature of the food is . ( a ) 4 degrees Celsius , or lower ; or ( b ) 60 degrees Celsius , or higher
The Justice of the Peace refers to R v . Kanda and notes that in other legislation if an absolute liability standard is meant it is stated as in s 84.1 ( 1 ) of the Highway Traffic Act and therefore the blurred lines do not help the appellant dispute the liability standard .
The justice provides an example of a restaurant that had a power outage in the middle of the night and the restaurant owner found the spoiled food the next morning . Theoretically as an absolute liability offence this owner would be in violation and punished for something that is out of their control which would be unconstitutional . The Justice refers to s . 2 of the HPPA which was created to provide the prevention of disease and to promote and protect the health of people . The owner upon discovery should have the opportunity to assess a situation and take the appropriate steps to ensure unsafe food is not served to the public .
The Justice on appeal found that the improper maintenance of potentially hazardous food is a strict liability offence .
R v Reardon , 2016 ONCJ 892
Appeal – Provincial Offences Act - Part I Offence - As Defined by The Highway Traffic Act - Magic Words Not Necessary
Defendant plead not guilty to a HHCD s . 78.1 ( 1 ) of the HTA . At trial the Justice of the Peace found the crown did not prove its case as the crowns witness did not use the words “ as defined by the Highway Traffic Act ” when describing the motor vehicle and highway .
S . 1 of the HTA provides the definitions of highway , motor vehicle and commercial motor vehicle .
R . v . Aversa [ 2007 ] ONCJ 644 , the ordinary meaning of a car met the definition of motor vehicle .
R v . Krymowski ( 2005 ), 193 C . C . C . ( 3d ) 129 , a court may accept without the requirement of proof , facts that are either so notorious or generally accepted as not to be subject of debate among reasonable persons or capable of immediate and demonstration by resort to readily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy , R v . Find [ 2001 ] 1 S . C . R 863 para 48 “ The dictionary meaning of words may fall within the latter category ” mleoa . ca 5