Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Act matters

The offender pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a conveyance and failure to stop after an accident.

He drove into a parked vehicle, fled at high speed while weaving dangerously through traffic, and struck a second parked vehicle.

The Crown sought jail time followed by probation and a driving prohibition.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

The court imposed a custodial sentence, finding that the gravity of the offences, the intentional and cavalier nature of the driving conduct, the offender's criminal and driving record, and the prevalence of dangerous driving incidents in the community warranted incarceration rather than a conditional sentence, despite the offender's youth and rehabilitative potential.

The corporate defendant, Limen Group Const. (2019) Ltd., and two individual supervisors, Octavio Tome and Emanuel Tavares, faced charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a fatal incident where a concrete block, improperly hoisted by a crane, fell and killed a worker.

The charges alleged failure to ensure suitable attachment points for hoisting and failure to sufficiently train and supervise workers regarding the hazard of using embedded rebar as hoisting points.

The court found that the Crown proved the hazardous act and the defendants' roles as employer and supervisors.

The defendants' due diligence defence, which argued the worker acted alone, was rejected.

The court found that the unsafe practice was not an isolated incident and was known or should have been known to supervisors, and that the defendants failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent such hazardous rigging.

All defendants were found guilty of the charges.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving a commercial motor vehicle with a major defect, contrary to section 107 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defects included inoperative brakes on a trailer and a crack in a wheel rim, discovered during an MTO inspection on June 18, 2017.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: lack of evidence of proper service of summons, improper application of credibility assessment principles, and failure to consider the due diligence defence.

The appeal court dismissed all grounds, finding that the summons was properly served, the trial judge correctly applied the W.D. analysis, and the trial judge properly assessed whether the appellant met the due diligence standard for a strict liability offence.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm, as well as criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm, arising from a motor vehicle collision on June 18, 2017.

Following a confrontation at a quarry where the accused was threatened, he fled in a vehicle with three young women as passengers.

While driving at speeds up to 183 km/h on an 80 km/h rural highway, he ignored repeated pleas from his passengers to slow down.

The vehicle crashed 2.7 km from the quarry, killing two passengers and injuring a third.

The court found the accused guilty of all charges, rejecting his argument that his conduct was justified by a reasonable belief in imminent peril, as the threat had passed and he had been informed by his passengers that no one was following them.

The appellant was charged with operating a motor vehicle without insurance contrary to the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

He was convicted in absentia at trial and his conviction was affirmed on appeal to the Ontario Court of Justice.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, a statutory declaration from an insurance company employee established that the vehicle was covered by a valid policy of insurance at the time of the alleged offence.

The Crown conceded that the statutory declaration was admissible evidence and that it proved the appellant did not commit the offence.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and an acquittal entered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for speeding contrary to section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act and driving with a hand-held communication device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The trial justice found the appellant guilty based on evidence from a police officer who observed the appellant driving at 130 km/h in a 100 km/h zone and using an electronic device.

The appellant testified he was holding a business card and that his cell phone was inoperable.

The appellate court found that the trial justice erred in applying the credibility assessment principles from R. v. W.(D.), applying a different standard to the appellant's testimony than to the officer's testimony, and effectively reversing the burden of proof.

The appeal was granted and a new trial was ordered.

The defendants were charged with five counts of importing engines without evidence of conformity as required by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The Crown alleged importation of seven small spark-ignition engines and five diesel engines mounted in tractors.

The court found that while the Crown proved the importation of tractors and that the engines were of a prescribed class, it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all engines had a model year of 2006 or later (for tractors) or 2005 or later (for small engines), which was an essential element of the offence.

The court convicted on one count relating to a tractor engine but acquitted on the remaining counts.

The appellant appealed a conviction entered under default proceedings for improperly using a blue flashing light contrary to section 62(32) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The certificate of offence listed an incorrect set fine of $85.00 when the correct fine for a commercial motor vehicle should have been $200.00.

The court found that the certificate was not complete and regular on its face and therefore could not support a conviction under the default proceedings.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving contrary to s. 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's witness, an off-duty Toronto Police Constable, testified that the accused deliberately engaged in a pattern of aggressive driving on Highway 401, including sudden lane changes without signalling, aggressive braking, and blocking maneuvers designed to prevent the witness from passing.

The accused testified he had no specific recollection of his driving actions and denied deliberately engaging in dangerous conduct.

The court found the Crown witness credible and reliable, rejected the accused's evidence as vague and inconsistent, and convicted the accused of dangerous driving, finding both the actus reus and mens rea established beyond a reasonable doubt.

A 16-year-old youth pled guilty to dangerous driving causing death while street racing.

The offender was driving his mother's car at approximately 130 km/h in a 60 km/h zone while racing another vehicle when he struck and killed an 18-year-old cyclist.

The court imposed a sentence of 7 months open custody followed by 3.5 months community supervision and one year probation, for a total of 10.5 months custody.

The sentence included 100 hours of community service, with a significant portion to be spent speaking at schools about the dangers of street racing, and a 5-year driving prohibition.

The court applied principles of accountability and denunciation while recognizing the offender's youth, remorse, and rehabilitation potential.

The defendant pleaded guilty to driving with a suspended license and operating a motor vehicle without insurance.

The Crown sought statutory minimum fines of $2,000 and $5,000 respectively.

The court imposed reduced fines of $1,200 and $750, exercising discretion under s.59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act to depart from minimum penalties where exceptional circumstances exist.

The court considered Gladue principles applicable to Aboriginal offenders, the defendant's systemic disadvantages, poverty, and lack of access to court processes, while maintaining that public safety and deterrence remain essential sentencing objectives.

The defendant was charged with operating an unsafe vehicle contrary to section 84 of the Highway Traffic Act after a wheel fell off his vehicle and struck a pedestrian.

The court found this to be a strict liability offence requiring a two-step analysis: first, the Crown must prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt; second, if successful, the defendant must establish due diligence on a balance of probabilities.

The Crown proved the defendant was driving an unsafe vehicle when the wheel fell off.

However, the defendant established that he and his wife took all reasonable steps to maintain the vehicle, including regular servicing at a dealership and checking the wheels after hearing a noise.

The defendant was acquitted.

An appeal of a conviction for "Turn not in safety" contrary to section 142(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant was charged after her vehicle was struck by a motorcycle while she was making a left turn.

The trial justice found the appellant guilty of the strict liability offence, finding that although the appellant took some precautions (signaling, checking mirrors), she failed to ensure the turn could be made safely.

The appeal court upheld the conviction, finding ample evidence to support the trial justice's conclusion that the motorcycle was visible to be seen had the appellant taken reasonable steps, and that the last look she took was while already into her turn.

A commercial motor vehicle operator was charged with two offences under the Highway Traffic Act: (1) driving without a currently validated permit contrary to section 7(1)(a), and (2) operating an overweight vehicle in violation of section 121(1).

The vehicle was a snow-clearing truck being transported for engine repairs outside its normal service area.

The court determined that the first charge should be stayed based on the defence of officially induced error of law, as the defendant had received erroneous advice from a Ministry of Transportation official regarding registration exemptions for snow-clearing equipment.

The second charge was dismissed because the court found the vehicle qualified for a weight exemption under section 114(3) of the HTA, as it was being operated on behalf of a municipality and was equipped with snow-clearing equipment (a salter), even though the ploughs had been temporarily removed for repairs.

A commercial trucking company was charged with transporting dangerous goods (wet-filled acid batteries) without displaying required safety placards and labels in violation of the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act.

The defendant argued that an exemption under 49 CFR 173.159(e) applied because the shipment originated from the United States.

The court rejected this argument, finding that 173.159(e) pertains only to packaging and bracing requirements, not placarding and safety marking requirements.

The court held that the exemption under section 9.1 of the Canadian Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 only applies when United States placarding and marking requirements are met, which they were not.

The defendant was convicted.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and care or control with excess alcohol following a collision with a road sign on January 13, 2013.

The accused struck a street sign on a raised median while driving, then parked his vehicle on Sonoma Boulevard where he was found asleep by police approximately four hours later with breath readings of 180 and 184 mg/100ml.

The defence argued the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption of care or control by establishing he had returned to the vehicle only for shelter after attempting to walk home in the rain.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as internally inconsistent and implausible, finding he had not rebutted the presumption and was guilty on both counts.

The accused was convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm, failing to remain at the scene of an accident causing bodily harm, obstructing a peace officer, and breaching probation.

The offences arose from a collision between the accused's vehicle and a snowmobile operated by a 16-year-old victim, resulting in life-threatening injuries including internal organ damage, brain bleed, and multiple fractures.

The accused fled the scene without rendering assistance and subsequently lied to police.

The court imposed a global sentence of 44 months, with credit for 428 days of pretrial custody at a 1.5:1 ratio, resulting in a remaining sentence of 22 months and 20 days.

The court also imposed a lifetime driving prohibition and DNA order.

The appellant, Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO), appealed sentences imposed on the respondents for trust account violations under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The respondents had pleaded guilty to failing to deposit customer funds in a designated trust account within two banking days and failing to hold customer funds in trust until payment was made to suppliers or refunds provided to customers.

The trial judge imposed suspended sentences with probation and restitution orders of $25,000 each for the individual respondents, and probation for the corporate respondent.

TICO sought imprisonment or substantial fines.

The appellate court upheld the sentences for the individuals but found the corporate sentence manifestly unfit and imposed a $25,000 fine with two years to pay.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle, failure to stop at the scene of an accident, and failing or refusing to comply with a breath sample demand.

The Crown relied on evidence of the accused striking a parked car with considerable force, post-accident physical characteristics, and the accused's failure to provide suitable breath samples.

The accused's defence was that the accident resulted from being blinded by oncoming high-beam headlights, that she did not leave the scene with requisite intent, and that she was unable to provide suitable samples due to respiratory problems.

The court found reasonable doubt on all three charges and dismissed them.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle, care or control with excess blood alcohol, and breach of a probation order.

The narrow issue was whether the accused was in care or control of his mother's vehicle on February 26, 2012.

The accused admitted to impairment and the blood alcohol concentration but disputed whether he operated the vehicle.

The Crown alleged the accused drove the vehicle into the driveway; the accused claimed he only sat in the driver's seat and attempted to rock the vehicle free from snow using his foot.

The court found the accused guilty, determining that his occupation of the driver's seat with the intention to set the vehicle in motion, even by foot power, constituted care or control under section 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.