Alys Bonwyn Patterson

The appellant appealed a conviction entered in his absence under section 9.1(1) of the Provincial Offences Act for failing to stop at an amber light contrary to section 144(15) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant did not appear at trial on July 25, 2018, and was deemed not to dispute the charge.

The appellant argued the Certificate of Offence was a nullity because his address was recorded incorrectly.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the address was surplusage and that the certificate contained all essential information necessary for the appellant to make an informed decision about how to respond to the charge.

The appellant appealed her conviction for permitting an uninsured motor vehicle to be operated contrary to the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

The vehicle was driven by her domestic partner without her explicit permission while the insurance had expired.

The trial judge convicted her on the basis that she failed to exercise due diligence.

On appeal, the court upheld the conviction, finding that the appellant's implied consent to the driver's use of the vehicle was established by circumstantial evidence, including their domestic relationship, shared residence, shared child, the driver's history of sporadic use of the vehicle, and the accessible location of the keys.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal and reduced the fine from $7,500 to $3,500, finding the original sentence was unfit given the appellant's lower moral culpability compared to deliberate offenders and the absence of aggravating factors.