A. Bruno

A voir dire was held to determine the admissibility and voluntariness of statements made by the defendant to a police officer.

The defendant was charged with permitting operation of a motor vehicle without insurance contrary to the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

The defendant contended that his statements were involuntary because the officer presented him with two options: either the defendant would be charged with the regulatory offence or the defendant's brother would be charged with the criminal offence of taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent.

The defendant also argued that the officer failed to provide Charter cautions.

The court found that the statements were voluntary because the two-option scenario was presented after the defendant had already made the inculpatory admissions, and therefore could not have induced those statements.

The court also found that no detention occurred and that the officer was not required to provide a caution at the time of the initial questioning.

The defendants, operators of Turntable Restaurant and Lounge holding a liquor sales licence with a caterer's endorsement, were charged with four offences under Ontario's Liquor Licence Act and regulations arising from a catered event at Natraj Banquet Hall on July 31-August 1, 2011.

The charges were: failing to remove signs of service, permitting use of narcotics on premises, failing to display a Sandy's Law warning sign, and permitting removal of liquor from premises.

The court found the defendants guilty of three charges (failing to remove signs of service, permitting use of narcotics, and permitting removal of liquor) and acquitted them of the Sandy's Law charge.

The court determined these were strict liability offences and the defendants failed to establish a due diligence defence.

The defendant was charged with careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act following a road rage incident at the intersection of Aerowood Drive and Dixie Road in Mississauga.

The prosecution alleged the defendant pushed the complainant into the intersection with his tractor-trailer and subsequently collided with the complainant's vehicle while making a U-turn.

The defendant denied the allegations, claiming he was unaware anyone was in front of his truck and that the incident occurred on private property.

The court found the defendant guilty, determining that the driving conduct occurred on a highway and constituted careless driving without due care and attention or reasonable consideration for others using the highway.

The appellant appealed his conviction under subsection 5.1(a) of the Dog Owners Liability Act for failing to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent his dog from attacking and killing a neighbour's dog.

The trial judge found the appellant was the "owner" of the dog under the Act's expanded definition, despite evidence that the dog was actually owned by a subtenant residing at the appellant's premises.

The appellate court found the trial judge erred in law by failing to clearly explain how the appellant fell within the statutory definition of "owner" (possession or harbouring), and by not addressing the standard of proof or the reasonableness of precautions taken.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.