A. Queijo

The appellant appealed her conviction for driving a motor vehicle while using a hand-held device, arguing that her section 11(b) Charter rights were violated due to delay of 10 months and 24 days between charge and trial.

The trial judge dismissed the 11(b) application.

On appeal, the court considered whether the Jordan framework for presumptive delay ceilings applies to provincial offences under Part I of the Provincial Offences Act.

The court held that while the Jordan framework applies to Part I proceedings, the presumptive ceiling for such offences should be lower than the 18-month ceiling for criminal matters, likely in the 12-15 month range, given the simpler nature of provincial offences and minimal intake requirements.

Since the delay was well under 12 months, no 11(b) violation was found and the appeal was dismissed.

The defendant, a registered vehicle owner, was charged with permitting a motor vehicle to be operated without insurance contrary to section 2(1)(b) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

The defendant's brother was driving the defendant's Mazda 3 when stopped by police on January 12, 2012.

The insurance policy had been cancelled effective January 5, 2012, but the defendant claimed he did not receive the cancellation notice because it was sent to his former address in Ajax after he had moved to Toronto.

The court found the actus reus proven but accepted the defendant's due diligence defence based on a reasonable mistake of fact, resulting in an acquittal.

The defendant was charged with permitting a motor vehicle to be operated without insurance contrary to section 2(1)(b) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

The Crown alleged that the defendant permitted his son to drive an uninsured BMW on September 5, 2011.

The defendant testified that he did not give his son permission to drive the vehicle and was unaware that his son had taken it until police informed him five weeks later.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant permitted the vehicle to be operated, accepting the defendant's credible and uncontradicted evidence that no permission was granted.