3 total
The court dismissed 242 meritless appeals filed by a paralegal to manipulate the demerit point system.
A paralegal licensed by the Law Society of Ontario systematically filed over 220 meritless appeals following guilty pleas to Highway Traffic Act offences.
The appeals were filed with no intention to proceed and were designed to exploit regulatory provisions that prevent recording of convictions and demerit points on driving records until appeals are sustained.
By filing appeals within the 30-day window and allowing them to languish, the paralegal effectively delayed the accrual of demerit points for two years from the offence date, thereby circumventing the demerit point system.
The court dismissed all 242 appeals (including 18 filed by an unidentified entity called "Traffic Tasks Legal") as abandoned and not proceeded with, finding the conduct constituted an abuse of the appeal process.
Appeal for new trial based on paralegal error dismissed due to lack of appellant affidavit.
This appeal concerned a Part I Provincial Offences Act conviction where the appellant sought a new trial due to a paralegal agent's error leading to a conviction without trial.
The court emphasized the "ends of justice" test under s. 138(1) of the POA, requiring sufficient evidence, typically through affidavits from both the appellant and the paralegal, detailing the error, its discovery, client notification, and any resulting prejudice.
The court criticized the "culture of complacency" among some paralegal agents in provincial offences courts and dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to provide any evidence (e.g., an affidavit) to support their claim, despite the paralegal's error.
Defendant found guilty of distracted driving for holding a cell phone, regardless of a falling mount.
The defendant was charged with driving while holding a hand-held communication device under the Highway Traffic Act.
The police officer observed the defendant holding a cell phone while driving.
The defendant argued the phone was in a mounting device that had fallen from the air conditioning vent and he merely caught it.
The court found the officer's evidence credible and reliable, and held that even if the defendant caught a falling mounting device containing a cell phone, holding it while driving constitutes an offence.
The defendant was found guilty.
