Canada: Yes – Corporations Do Have Rights:

Last Updated: January 19 2017
Article by Jeremy Schwartz

Part II – We Just Proved it!

On December 13, 2016, Ryan Conlin and I published an update concerning the recent case of R. v. Live Nation (since reported: here) in which the Ontario Court of Justice found that the new test for unconstitutional delay (the "Jordan Test") applied equally to corporate defendants in regulatory prosecutions.  That new test was the result of last summer's Supreme Court ruling in R. v. Jordan.  Despite the favourable ruling for all employers, the application of the new test did not result in a stay of proceedings in R. v. Live Nation.

This author was counsel to an individual director and ten corporate defendants in an Employment Standards Act ("ESA") prosecution (R. v Fitness One et. al., unreported), in which we brought a motion arguing that the defendants' constitutionally protected rights to a trial within a reasonable time as protected by s.11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, had been breached. 

We are pleased to report that on January 13, 2017, Justice DeBartolo of the Ontario Court of Justice not only found that the Jordan Test applied to the corporate defendants, but stayed the proceedings against the individual and all ten corporate defendants as well.

To our knowledge, this is the first time a court has applied the Jordan Test to stay charges against a corporate defendant in a regulatory prosecution, anywhere in the country.1

Jordan Test

We have written before on the groundbreaking decision in R v Jordan (see our previous blog post on that case here).  In Jordan, the Supreme Court of Canada set hard caps on the time it takes to process a prosecution through trial.  The time limit under the cap is determined by the court procedure elected by the Crown in prosecuting the offence.

Hearings before the Superior Court must be completed in 30 months and those before provincial courts, which include regulatory prosecutions (under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Employment Standards Act, etc.) must be completed in 18 months.

If the actual time to the end of trial exceeds the cap, then absent certain defined circumstances the right of the accused to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is considered to have been breached.  This invariably results in a stay of proceedings, which has the effect of dismissing the charges and preventing the Crown from laying them again.

R. v. Fitness One et. al.

The case involved almost 200 orders to pay against 10 corporate defendants and one individual director, for allegedly failing to pay certain Ministry of Labour orders to pay wages issued by an Employment Standards Officer.  As the name of the corporation suggests, the business was essentially a management company and eight fitness clubs. The businesses ceased operations and Ministry of Labour investigations concluded that roughly 70 individuals were due a total of about $140,000 in wages.  Approximately $30,000 was collected via garnishment, leaving roughly $110,000 outstanding.

The charges against all defendants were laid in February 2015 and the first court appearance occurred in late April 2015.  The individual defendant (the director) represented himself and the corporate defendants until our firm was retained in October 2016.  By this time, there had been two preliminary appearances and three judicial pre-trials.

The first two trial dates, November 25 and December 1, 2016, were used to argue a disclosure motion and this motion concerning delay.  As a result of limited court availability, the case was not scheduled to conclude the hearing on the merits until May 2017.

As a regulatory prosecution in a provincial court, the Jordan Test (if applicable) prescribed that the hearing must conclude within 18 months.  The time from the laying of charges to December 1, 2016 was roughly 22.5 months.

Highlights of the Decision on Delay

Justice DeBartolo followed Live Nation, finding that the new Jordan Test applied equally to corporate defendants, including in regulatory prosecutions, something the Crown resisted strongly.  

The Court found that, unlike in Live Nation, there was nothing complex about the prosecution - despite the fact that there were almost 200 charges against eleven defendants.  Indeed, the Crown had advised the Court at an earlier appearance that it was mostly a "paper case" for the Crown, which could be put in with or without a witness, via certificate evidence, in about two days including argument.

Somewhat surprisingly, the Court charged as defence delay the roughly two months between the first appearance in April 2015 (when the defendants received a bankers box of disclosure) and the second appearance in July 2015.  That adjournment was provided so the defendants could review the significant disclosure.  The Supreme Court in Jordan said this sort of ordinary defence preparation time should not be charged against the time through trial (when calculating whether the 18 cap was breached), and said such things delays were accounted for in the (18 month) deadline.  We argued as much.  In any event, that took us from at least 22.5 months down to roughly 20.5, and so we remained over the 18-month ceiling.  

A significant issue argued on the motion was the failure by the court and Crown, at various appearances, to apprise the unrepresented accused of their Charter rights.  As such, the Court rejected the Crown's argument that the accused's tacit acceptance of dates offered, which in every case were the first available, constituted tacit condonation.  The Crown had argued, echoing the sort of arguments heard pre-Jordan, that defendants cannot be passive but instead must be actively complaining and enforcing their rights.  The Court rejected this submission.  This is not surprising, as it was precisely that sort of submission from which the Supreme Court sought to depart with Jordan.

The Crown had argued that, as a transitional case which commenced pre-Jordan and would conclude post-Jordan, the reasonableness of the steps taken (and not taken) had to be judged based on what would have been acceptable under the old framework. Effectively the Crown asked the Court to determine whether the actions of the parties would, under the old system, have given rise to a stay of proceedings, and then to use that to determine whether the parties would have had reason to be concerned at various points in the pre-Jordan process.  The Crown argued that the transitional exception ought to apply, and so a stay not entered, if it would not have been reasonably anticipated/understood by the parties under the old framework that there was a problem.

The Court rejected this argument, finding that when the case had reached its second judicial pre-trial, some 11 months after the charges were laid, the matter should have been set down for trial. Instead, and despite the fact that the defendants explicitly told the Crown its position on joint resolution would never be acceptable and said "let's go to trial", the Justice of the Peace, on his own initiative, pressed the parties to schedule a third judicial pre-trial to allow the parties to continue discussions.  This caused a further five-month delay because of a lack of court availability.

The Crown had argued that the defendants' failure to complain about the time the case was taking, distinguished the case from R. v Williamson.  The Supreme Court released R. v Williamson on the heels of Jordan, and the case provided a helpful example and discussion of how to apply the "transitional exception" in transitional cases.  The Court rejected this argument finding that, as unrepresented defendants, the Court had a duty to help them to understand their rights.  The court had neither explained their rights to them along the way, nor offered them an opportunity expressly to reject the multiple proposed dates set.  In each case the Crown and presiding Justice of the Peace had simply discussed the next step, the Court Clerk offered the first available dates, and then the defendants were merely consulted for their availability.  

Finally, to the extent prejudice remains something to consider in transitional cases, the Court found that the cloud of a prosecution involving more than $100,000 in outstanding orders to pay, plus fines, plus a Crown pressing for jail time for the individual director accused, was significant "actual" prejudice.  The Court found that this prejudice made the court's failure to assist the defendants to understand their rights, and failure to set the matter down for trial at month 11, all the more unreasonable.

What Employers Need to Know

The Crown has 30 days from the decision to appeal to the Provincial Court of Justice, so this may not be the last word in this matter.

However, if courts continue to heed the call in Live Nation for an unfiltered application of Jordan to corporate defendants in regulatory matters, this case adds to the chorus and amplifies the din. 


1 Cases in regulatory matters are often unreported and so may not be readily known or searchable. We are aware of no reported or unreported decisions in which a corporate accused successfully had regulatory charges stayed applying the Jordan Test.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions