Background:

• PPS, a company providing road marking and snow clearing services, was convicted in 2023 for unlawfully occupying a commercial/industrial building at 296 Bluewater Road without an occupancy permit.
• The sentencing judge imposed a $172,500 fine ($150,000 plus a 15% victim surcharge).
• PPS appealed, arguing that the sentence was excessive and based on errors in principle.

Grounds of Appeal & Court’s Ruling:

1. Speculation About Building Permit Requirements

   • PPS argued the judge improperly generalized public knowledge on permits.
   • The court ruled that, in context, the judge’s comments focused on PPS’s actual awareness of permit requirements.
   • Appeal dismissed.

2. Failure to Consider Market Rental Value

   • PPS claimed the fine should reflect potential rental income.
   • The court found PPS never rented the property but allowed its subsidiary to occupy it rent-free, making rental value irrelevant.
   • Appeal dismissed.

3. Failure to Consider That Two Convictions Were Related

   • PPS argued that two 2023 convictions (both at 296 Bluewater Rd.) arose from contemporaneous violations and should not have been treated separately.
   • The court ruled that PPS committed multiple distinct violations, and the repeated nature of offences justified deterrence.
   • Appeal dismissed.

Conclusion:

• The $172,500 fine was upheld due to PPS’s history of non-compliance and the importance of deterrence.
• The appeal was fully dismissed.