3 total
Motion to stay revocation of taxi licences pending judicial review dismissed for lack of irreparable harm.
The applicant sought a stay of the municipality's decision to revoke its taxi licences and refuse additional licences pending an application for judicial review.
The municipality had revoked the licences based on by-law violations and non-compliance with COVID-19 orders.
Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as the alleged financial losses were quantifiable.
The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the municipality's public interest in enforcing its regulatory scheme.
The motion for a stay was dismissed.
The court allowed the Crown's appeal and entered a stunt driving conviction, ruling that locking in a radar speed reading is not an essential element of the offence.
Crown appeal of an acquittal on a charge of stunt driving contrary to section 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.
The trial Justice of the Peace erred in law by imposing a requirement that an officer must "lock in" the speed reading on a radar device as an essential element of the offence.
Both Crown and Defence agreed this was an error.
The appellate court found that the trial Justice properly found the officer was qualified, the radar device was in proper working order, and the accused was driving at 171 km/h in a 100 km/h zone.
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and entered a finding of guilt.
Convictions for adult entertainment by-law violations set aside; touching prohibition requires dancer to be nude.
The appellants, an adult entertainment parlour and its manager, appealed their convictions under a municipal by-law prohibiting dancers from touching patrons.
The trial and appeal judges had interpreted the by-law as an absolute prohibition on touching, regardless of the dancer's state of dress.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the by-law must be interpreted to prohibit touching only when the dancer is nude or partially nude, otherwise the provision would be unconstitutionally vague.
Because the trial judge failed to properly resolve conflicting evidence regarding the dancer's state of dress, the convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.
