Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Act matters

A provincial offences appeal concerning the destruction of a boundary tree without the consent of the co-owner.

The appellant, a homeowner, obtained a municipal permit to remove a Norway maple tree on the property line between his residence and his neighbors' property, claiming it was hazardous.

He removed the tree without obtaining the neighbors' consent.

The trial justice found him guilty of violating section 10(3) of the Forestry Act.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the Forestry Act did not apply to joint owners of boundary trees and that he had a self-help remedy to abate a nuisance.

The appellate court upheld the conviction, finding that the appellant's conduct was manifestly unreasonable, particularly given the three-and-a-half-year delay between obtaining the permit and removing the tree, and his failure to seek consent or court authorization.

Appeal of convictions and sentences for violations of the Highway Traffic Act arising from a wheel detachment incident on October 10, 2013.

Inter County Concrete Products Limited was charged under section 84.1(1) for permitting operation of a commercial motor vehicle from which a wheel became detached.

Pedrag Petkovic was charged under section 84(1) for driving a vehicle in a dangerous or unsafe condition.

The trial justice convicted both appellants and imposed substantial fines.

The appellants appealed both convictions and sentences, raising issues regarding the sufficiency of the information, the characterization of the offence, and the appropriateness of the sentences imposed.

The appellant appealed an acquittal on a charge of failing to comply with an Order to Comply issued under the Building Code Act.

The respondent, a property owner, had leased commercial premises to a tenant who performed unauthorized construction.

The respondent received an order to comply but argued it did not apply to them as the landlord.

The trial court acquitted the respondent based on lack of collateral attack and due diligence.

On appeal, the court found the respondent was engaged in an impermissible collateral attack but upheld the acquittal based on the trial court's finding of due diligence, which was reasonably supported by the evidence.

A ruling on a voir dire concerning the admissibility of Approximate Regulation Limit (A.R.L.) maps created by the Halton Region Conservation Authority.

The prosecution sought to admit these maps as evidence to establish the regulatory jurisdiction of the Authority over properties at 7459 Auburn Road, Milton, Ontario.

The defendants challenged admissibility on hearsay grounds.

The court determined that the A.R.L. maps, created pursuant to Ontario Regulation 162/06, constitute part of the regulation itself and are therefore admissible under section 25 of the Evidence Act as copies of regulations.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle on a highway without insurance, failing to affix a valid number plate, and failing to wear a seatbelt.

The defendant claimed his pickup truck was a self-propelled implement of husbandry (SPIH) and therefore exempt from these requirements.

The defendant also raised Charter rights concerns regarding detention and the right to counsel.

The court found that the defendant's Charter rights were not infringed during the routine traffic stop and that the defendant failed to meet his burden of proving the vehicle qualified for the SPIH exception.

The court convicted the defendant on all three counts.

The defendant was charged with driving a commercial motor vehicle tractor-trailer combination on the Queen Elizabeth Way highway with the tractor in a dangerous or unsafe condition, contrary to s. 84(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The charge arose from an inspection at a truck inspection station where an enforcement officer observed one missing fastener bolt and nut on the third axle front right wheel assembly, several loose washers, and an alleged 1/8 inch separation between the two wheels.

The defendant had undergone a defect-free inspection at the same station four days earlier and had conducted his own pre-trip inspection that morning.

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidence did not establish a prescribed critical defect under the applicable regulations, and expert witness testimony would have been required to establish that the observed defects rendered the vehicle dangerous or unsafe.

The defendant, Matcor Automotive Inc., appealed a sentence of $270,000 (three counts at $90,000 each) imposed after conviction on three counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The conviction arose from a workplace incident in which a maintenance worker suffered catastrophic injury (paraplegia) due to inadequate training, supervision, and safety procedures regarding robotic equipment.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was fit and within the acceptable range, rejecting arguments that the sentencing judge erred in principle regarding proportionality, totality, inferences from evidence, consideration of prior convictions, and the acceptability of the sentencing range.

An appeal from a conviction under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2007 for acting as a motor vehicle dealer without being registered.

The trial was conducted ex parte in the absence of the defendant.

The appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, finding that the trial judge failed to conduct the required inquiry into whether an ex parte trial was appropriate, particularly given the prosecution's intention to seek a custodial sentence.

The court found that the procedural history demonstrated inadequate notice to the defendant and no proper consideration of the defendant's right to be present at trial, amounting to a miscarriage of justice.

The defendant was charged with failing to stop at a red traffic light contrary to section 144(18) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The collision occurred at the intersection of Taunton Road and Garrard Road in Whitby on March 2, 2016.

The prosecution presented evidence from the other driver and a police officer, while the defendant testified that her traffic light was green.

The court applied the presumption of regularity to find that both directional traffic lights could not have been green simultaneously.

After assessing credibility using the Faryna v. Chorney test and R. v. W.D. principles, the court found the defendant's evidence unreliable and accepted the prosecution's evidence.

The defendant was convicted.

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings pursuant to sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The applicant was charged with disobeying a stop sign contrary to the Highway Traffic Act under Part 1 of the Provincial Offences Act.

The charge was laid on November 12, 2014, and the anticipated trial date was May 18, 2017, representing a delay of approximately 30 months and 6 days.

Applying the framework established in R. v. Jordan, the court calculated a net delay of 21 months and 18 days, which exceeded the presumptive ceiling of 18 months for Provincial Court matters.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The court granted the stay of proceedings as the appropriate remedy.

The defendant was charged with trespassing contrary to section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Trespass to Property Act after being served with a notice of trespass and subsequently travelling on a road that crossed the Bergen property to access his landlocked parcel.

The Crown proved the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court found that the defendant had a limited statutory right to use the road as an access road under the Road Access Act, which confers on users of access roads a temporary right to travel to and from their properties without being considered trespassers until a court order closing the road is obtained.

The defendant was acquitted.

The defendant was convicted in absentia of three counts under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act: failing to comply with prescribed standards of care by not providing adequate food and water to animals, and permitting an animal to be in distress.

The defendant owned two snakes, one of which was found dead and infested with maggots, while the other was alive but lethargic, without food or water.

The defendant admitted to owning the snakes and stated they had stopped feeding and he did not seek veterinary care.

The court imposed fines, a prohibition order on owning snakes, and a restitution order.

The defendant was charged with speeding 21 kilometers per hour over the posted speed limit on Wellington Road West in Guelph.

A police officer using a properly calibrated and tested Ultralyte laser speed detection device measured the defendant's vehicle traveling at 81 kilometers per hour in a posted 60 kilometers per hour zone.

The defendant testified he was traveling at 60 kilometers per hour based on his vehicle's speedometer.

The court accepted the officer's evidence over the defendant's, finding the laser device to be a scientifically and legally recognized instrument.

The court also addressed the defendant's argument regarding speed sign spacing under Regulation 200, finding that the speed zone was properly established and the offense occurred within the enforceable zone.

The defendant was convicted and sentenced to a fine of $94.50 plus victim surcharge, payable within 15 days.

The defendant appealed his conviction for careless driving, challenging the trial judge's dismissal of a Charter section 11(b) application regarding delay in trial.

The defendant was charged on August 22, 2014, and tried on October 5, 2015, approximately 13.5 months later.

The trial judge accepted an unsupported assertion by defence counsel that the defendant had attended court in person requesting a trial but was compelled to attend an early resolution meeting instead.

The appellate court found this assertion had no evidentiary foundation and was not supported by the defendant's affidavit.

The court held that the time to the resolution meeting should have been excluded from the Charter calculation, and that the remaining delay was within constitutional tolerance for a careless driving charge.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired and with an elevated blood alcohol content, as well as provincial offences related to leaving the scene of an accident and failing to report an accident.

The accused was found unconscious in the driver's seat of a damaged vehicle parked in a private driveway.

Police discovered open alcohol in the vehicle and obtained breath samples showing blood alcohol levels of 171 and 164 mg/100mL.

The accused challenged the charges on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8 and 10(b).

The court found that the accused was in care or control of the motor vehicle, that any Charter breaches were minimal and justified by exigent circumstances, and that the evidence was admissible.

The accused was convicted on all charges.

Crown appeal from an acquittal of a defendant charged with driving a heavy vehicle on a prohibited highway contrary to the City of Oshawa Traffic By-law 79-99.

The trial judge acquitted the defendant by finding that the prosecution bore the burden of proving the defendant knew of or intended to violate the bylaw.

The appellate court found the trial judge erred by imposing a mens rea requirement on a strict liability offence and by improperly relying on section 134(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, which did not apply to municipal bylaws.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that once the actus reus was proven, the burden shifted to the defendant to establish a due diligence defence under the strict liability framework.

The applicant brought a motion to stay proceedings for driving while under suspension and failing to properly wear a seatbelt, alleging a breach of his section 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The Crown argued the matter should be assessed under the Morin framework, while the applicant relied on the newly released Jordan framework establishing an 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court cases.

The court found that although the total delay was 17 months and 1 day, the case became significantly more complex mid-proceedings when the Crown discovered the defendant had multiple driver's licences that had been merged by the Ministry of Transportation.

The court held that the time spent on judicial pre-trial conferences constituted inherent time requirements of the case and that the Crown had acted expeditiously throughout.

The motion to stay was dismissed.

Appeal from a conviction for careless driving under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant was found guilty of careless driving after colliding with another vehicle on a snow-covered, icy road.

The appellant was travelling at a speed too fast for the conditions and was unable to stop when the vehicle ahead signalled and began a left turn.

The appellant argued the trial justice erred in assessing due diligence and in finding the speed was too fast for conditions.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial justice properly applied the legal test and had ample evidence to support the conviction.

Avenue Building Corporation was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act with failing to ensure that equipment being moved was moved in a manner that did not endanger a worker, following an incident where an employee broke his leg when a 4x4 he was using to move a wall form broke.

The trial judge found the corporation guilty, concluding that the corporation failed to exercise due diligence by allowing workers discretion in tool selection without adequate training and supervision, and by failing to include written procedures for moving wall forms.

On appeal, the appellate court found that the trial judge misapprehended the specific charge and failed to properly apply the due diligence analysis to the correct actus reus, warranting a new trial.

The prosecuting municipality sought certiorari and mandamus under s.140 of the Provincial Offences Act to set aside a justice of the peace’s order quashing a certificate of offence for speeding under s.128 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The justice had ruled that the certificate disclosed no offence because the word “speeding” was not used in the offence description.

The Superior Court held that the certificate sufficiently described the offence by referencing the statutory provision and factual particulars, satisfying s.25 of the Provincial Offences Act.

Alternatively, even if deficient, the justice was required to permit amendment under s.34 absent prejudice.

The justice erred in quashing the certificate on her own initiative and misapprehended the amendment power under the Act.