Andrew Fordham

The accused was charged with stunt racing contrary to s. 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act for driving at 161 km/h in a 100 km/h zone on Highway 401, exceeding the speed limit by 61 km/h.

The Crown relied on Lidar speed detection evidence from a trained officer.

The defence challenged the accuracy of the Lidar reading and suggested the officer's vehicle was moving when the reading was taken.

The court found stunt racing to be a strict liability offence with a due diligence defence available.

The Crown proved the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused failed to establish the due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities.

The accused was convicted.

The defendant was charged with driving while suspended contrary to s. 53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and displaying a suspended driver's licence contrary to s. 35(1)(b) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown proved the defendant was a suspended driver on the date in question.

The defendant raised a due diligence defence, claiming he was confused about remedial measures requirements and had not received notice of suspension by mail.

The court found the defendant had been personally served with notice of suspension and that his actions fell short of what a reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances.

The court rejected the defence of officially induced error and convicted the defendant on both charges.

The accused was charged with stunt driving under the Highway Traffic Act for allegedly travelling 161 km/h in a 100 km/h zone.

The Crown relied on Lidar evidence from a police officer.

The court dismissed a defence motion for a directed verdict regarding identity.

At trial, the court accepted the officer's Lidar evidence as accurate and rejected the defence's testimony that the police vehicle was moving or that the Lidar targeted the wrong vehicle.

Finding that stunt driving is a strict liability offence, the court held the Crown proved the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused failed to establish a due diligence defence.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with driving while suspended and displaying a suspended driver's licence.

He argued a due diligence defence of officially induced error, claiming he believed his licence was valid after registering for a remedial program.

The court found the Crown proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt and that the accused failed to establish due diligence on a balance of probabilities, as a reasonable person would have made more fulsome inquiries.

Findings of guilt were entered on both charges.

The defendant was charged with operating an unsafe motor vehicle contrary to section 84 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The collision occurred on August 12, 2010, when the defendant's 1996 Chrysler Voyager experienced brake failure on Chemong Road in Peterborough, resulting in a single-vehicle collision with a rock abutment and the death of a passenger.

The Crown proved that the vehicle was in a dangerous or unsafe condition due to multiple mechanical defects including brake system failures, extensive corrosion, and improper maintenance.

The defendant failed to establish due diligence in vehicle maintenance.

The court found the defendant guilty.