Joshi et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care), 2015 ONSC 1001

JudgeMarrocco, A.C.J.S.C., Swinton and Corbett, JJ.
CourtSuperior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
Case DateJanuary 27, 2015
JurisdictionOntario
Citations2015 ONSC 1001;(2015), 331 O.A.C. 191 (DC)

Joshi v. Ont. (2015), 331 O.A.C. 191 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.016

Ravi Joshi and 1788377 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as Wilson Street Esso (applicants) v. Minister of Health and Long-Term Care (respondent)

(188/14: 2015 ONSC 1001)

Indexed As: Joshi et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care)

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Marrocco, A.C.J.S.C., Swinton and Corbett, JJ.

March 2, 2015.

Summary:

Two Essso convenience store employees were convicted of selling tobacco to minors (Smoke-Free Ontario Act, s. 3(1)). As a result of the convictions, the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care issued a notice of prohibition prohibiting the sale of any tobacco products at the store for six months and requiring a sign to be posted which according the regulations had to contain the following message: "We cannot sell tobacco products. We were convicted of tobacco sales to minors". The store changed operators. The new operators sought to have the prohibition set aside and not enforced against them. The Minister decided that the prohibition applied to the new operators since the prohibition was associated with the place and not with a particular person. Thus the prohibition applied to the new operators even though the new operators or their employees had never been convicted of a tobacco sales offence. The new operators applied for judicial review.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the application and set aside the Minister's decision that the prohibition applied to the new operators.

Statutes - Topic 2601

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - General principles - The Ontario Divisional Court, in interpreting s. 16 of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act respecting prohibitions on tobacco sales, adopted a purposive approach - The court stated that "The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly endorsed the purposive approach to statutory interpretation, which requires that 'the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament' (Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex ...). As the Ontario Court of Appeal stated in Bapoo v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. ... 'The court's interpretation should comply with the legislative text, promote the legislative purpose and produce a reasonable and just meaning.'" - See paragraph 20.

Trade Regulation - Topic 9167

Offences - Sentencing - Prohibition orders - General - Two Essso convenience store employees were convicted of selling tobacco to minors (Smoke-Free Ontario Act, s. 3(1)) - Therefore, the responsible Minister prohibited the sale of any tobacco products at the store for six months (s. 16) and required a sign to be posted stating that: "We cannot sell tobacco products. We were convicted of tobacco sales to minors" - The store changed operators (arms-length transaction) - The Minister decided that the prohibition applied to the new operators since it was associated with the place and not with a particular person - The new operators applied for judicial review - The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the application - The Minister erred in holding that the prohibition applied to the new operators, who had never been convicted of a tobacco related sales offence.

Trade Regulation - Topic 9187

Offences - Sentence - Particular offences - Selling tobacco to a minor - Prohibition orders - To whom applicable - [See Trade Regulation - Topic 9167 ].

Words and Phrases

Any person - The Ontario Divisional Court discussed the meaning of the phrase "any person" as it appeared in s. 16(2) of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, S.O. 1994, c. 10 (as amended in 2005) - See paragraphs 23 to 43.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Seaway Gas & Fuel Ltd. et al. (2000), 128 O.A.C. 268; 47 O.R.(3d) 458 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 20].

Bapoo v. Co-Operators General Insurance Co. (1997), 36 O.R.(3d) 616 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Che (M.Y.) (1997), 104 O.A.C. 270 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

Belanger v. R. (1916), 54 S.C.R. 265, refd to. [para. 36].

Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. v. AXA Insurance (Canada) (2012), 296 O.A.C. 199; 2012 ONCA 592, refd to. [para. 41].

Statutes Noticed:

Smoke-Free Ontario Act, S.O. 1994, c. 10, sect. 16 [para. 7]; sect. 16(2) [para. 22]; sect. 16(4), sect. 16(5) [para. 27]; sect. 18 [para. 8].

Smoke-Free Ontario Act Regulations (Ont.), General Regulation, O. Reg. 48/06, sect. 25(3), sect. 25(4) [para. 9].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), pp. 214 and 215 [para. 29].

Counsel:

Amy Pressman and Laura K. Bisset, for the applicants;

Sunil Mathai and Bruce Ellis, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Toronto, on January 27, 2015, before Marrocco, A.C.J.S.C., Swinton and Corbett, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The following decision was delivered for the court, on March 2, 2015, by Swinton, J.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • R. v. Pourlotfali (J.), 2016 ONCA 490
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • June 20, 2016
    ...to rely upon. [62] The Divisional Court carefully analyzed these amendments to s. 16 in Joshi v. Minister of Health and Long-Term Care , 2015 ONSC 1001. Swinton J. noted that prior to the amendments, a prohibition on tobacco sales could only follow if the owner or occupier had been convicte......
  • 2813127 Ontario Inc. v. His Majesty the King,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • February 2, 2023
    ...convictions of two of its employees and the employee of a previous owner/operator of the business. Then, in 2015, in Joshi v. Ontario, 2015 ONSC 1001, 125 O.R. (3d) 384 (Div. Ct.), this court granted a similar application, brought by the operators of a business which had received a notice o......
2 cases
  • R. v. Pourlotfali (J.), 2016 ONCA 490
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • June 20, 2016
    ...to rely upon. [62] The Divisional Court carefully analyzed these amendments to s. 16 in Joshi v. Minister of Health and Long-Term Care , 2015 ONSC 1001. Swinton J. noted that prior to the amendments, a prohibition on tobacco sales could only follow if the owner or occupier had been convicte......
  • 2813127 Ontario Inc. v. His Majesty the King,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • February 2, 2023
    ...convictions of two of its employees and the employee of a previous owner/operator of the business. Then, in 2015, in Joshi v. Ontario, 2015 ONSC 1001, 125 O.R. (3d) 384 (Div. Ct.), this court granted a similar application, brought by the operators of a business which had received a notice o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT