Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Act matters

The defendant pleaded guilty to driving a motor vehicle on a highway carelessly causing bodily harm contrary to section 130(3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The incident occurred on August 18, 2019, when the defendant failed to stop at a stop sign and collided with another vehicle, causing severe spinal cord injuries to the victim resulting in full paralysis.

The court imposed a $2,000 fine with one year to pay, a two-year probation order prohibiting driving for the first year and restricting driving to employment or education purposes in the second year, and required completion of an approved educational driving program.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing death following a collision on May 15, 2018, that resulted in the death of Jonas Mitchell.

At the preliminary inquiry, the court found that while the Crown could establish the actus reus (the dangerous act of entering an intersection on a red light), it could not establish the required mens rea (mental element) of a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver.

The court discharged the accused, finding that momentary inattention for approximately nine to ten seconds, without evidence of speeding, deliberate red-light running, or erratic maneuvers, did not constitute the criminal fault required for dangerous driving.

The court emphasized that carelessness alone is insufficient for criminal liability and that the consequences of the accident, while tragic, cannot drive the charge when the manner of driving does not meet the criminal threshold.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss charges for alleged violations of Town of Fort Erie By-Law 129-90 regarding the use of a public storage facility and cargo containers on their properties.

The defendants argued that the prosecution constituted an abuse of process because similar charges had been brought against them on multiple prior occasions that were resolved in their favour, and that the Town was therefore estopped from continuing the prosecution.

The court rejected the motion, finding no evidence of bad faith, discrimination, or vexatiousness on the part of the Town.

The court held that a prior dismissal in 2013 did not preclude the municipality from ongoing enforcement of zoning by-law violations, and that the defence of legal non-conforming use remained a matter for adjudication at trial.

The appellant appealed a ten-year driving prohibition imposed following her conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm.

She argued the prohibition was manifestly unfit and sought a five-year prohibition, contending the trial judge erred in emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation for a young, first-time offender.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the seriousness of the offence, the appellant's prior poor driving record, and the devastating harm caused to the victims.

The court upheld the sentence as a whole, noting the trial judge exercised restraint by reducing the custodial sentence while lengthening the driving prohibition to protect the public.

Appeal of sentences imposed on a corporation and two directors for violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act following the death of a worker who fell from an elevated order picker platform.

The trial judge imposed fines of $125,000 on each count against the corporation and 25 days intermittent incarceration on each director.

The appellants challenged the sentences as excessive.

The appellate court allowed the appeal and substantially reduced the sentences, finding that imprisonment was inappropriate for first-time offenders in regulatory matters and that the fines were demonstrably unfit and outside the acceptable range for similar offences.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and failure or refusal to provide a breath sample.

The Crown's evidence established that the accused was found intoxicated in the driver's seat of his vehicle, which was stuck in a snowbank at a bar parking lot.

The accused's defence relied on alleged cognitive impairment from a beating he received the previous day in New Liskeard.

The court rejected the accused's credibility, finding his selective memory and lack of corroborating evidence problematic.

The court found the accused guilty on both charges, determining that he had failed to rebut the presumption of impaired care or control and that his refusal to provide a breath sample was deliberate and intentional.

A provincial court judge presiding over a lengthy trial involving charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a stage collapse at a Radiohead concert in Toronto was appointed to the Superior Court of Justice mid-trial.

The Crown argued the judge retained jurisdiction to complete the trial under the Provincial Offences Act, while the defence argued the appointment resulted in loss of jurisdiction.

The court found that the judge had lost jurisdiction to continue the trial, as the Provincial Offences Act lacks a provision comparable to section 669.3 of the Criminal Code permitting continuing jurisdiction upon appointment to another court.

A new trial was ordered.

The defendant was charged with five offences arising from operating a motor vehicle on a highway without proper documentation and insurance.

The charges included: failing to surrender a vehicle permit, failing to surrender a driver's licence, failing to surrender an insurance card, using an unauthorized number plate, and operating a motor vehicle without insurance.

The defendant did not appear at trial.

The court found the defendant guilty of all charges, but applied the rule against multiple convictions to the insurance-related offences, entering a conviction on the more serious charge and a conditional stay on the lesser charge.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The Crown's case relied on evidence that the appellant was driving at a very high rate of speed (40-50 km/h above the speed limit) and possibly racing another vehicle when he entered an intersection where a collision occurred with a vehicle making a left turn.

The appellant argued he was driving only somewhat over the speed limit and that the accident resulted from the other driver's illegal left turn.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all four grounds of appeal, finding the trial judge's instructions on the fault component of dangerous driving were consistent with R. v. Roy, the expert evidence was properly admitted, the instruction regarding Highway Traffic Act convictions was harmless, and the verdict was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a conviction for pass off roadway contrary to the Highway Traffic Act, which was entered through default proceedings under the Provincial Offences Act.

The sole ground of appeal was that the certificate of offence was defective because it failed to indicate whether the time of the alleged offence (April 24, 2015, at 4:59) was in the A.M. or P.M., as a box on the certificate intended for this designation was left blank.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the omission was highly technical and could not have caused prejudice, as only two realistic times were possible and the context would make clear which was alleged.

The Crown prosecuted Alpa Lumber Mills Inc. and its supervisor Van Kham Sichantha for failing to ensure that a rip saw machine (Rip Saw #1) was properly shielded or guarded to prevent product or material being processed from endangering worker safety, contrary to sections 25(1)(c) and 27(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and section 26 of Ontario Regulation 851/90.

A worker was injured when a wooden stake was ejected from the machine at high velocity and pierced his arm.

The defendants argued they had taken all reasonable care by relying on the machine's built-in safety features, regular maintenance, and worker training.

The court found both defendants guilty, holding that the hazard of ejected material was reasonably foreseeable based on the manufacturer's own warnings, and that the defendants failed to take all reasonable steps including obtaining and reviewing the correct operating manual, implementing regular inspection of anti-kickback mechanisms, and ensuring workers did not stand in front of the infeed opening.

Crown appeal of an acquittal on a charge of careless driving contrary to s. 130 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.

The respondent was operating a tractor-trailer that struck the rear of a milk truck on a rural highway.

The trial judge acquitted the respondent, finding that while the respondent's conduct fell below the standard of a reasonable driver, it did not constitute careless driving because it was merely inadvertent negligence and the respondent had been driving properly for approximately five kilometres prior to the incident.

The appellate court allowed the appeal and registered a conviction, clarifying the legal test for careless driving as a strict liability offence and rejecting the trial judge's erroneous application of additional elements.

The defendant, a professional truck driver with 22 years of experience, was charged with careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act after colliding with a stopped crash truck on Highway 401 near Mississauga.

The crash truck was equipped with flashing amber lights and a large illuminated arrow sign directing traffic away from the right lane.

The defendant claimed he could not see the crash truck because a vehicle in front of him blocked his view and that safety cones had been removed moments before the collision.

The court found the defendant's testimony not credible and concluded he had observed the flashing lights from approximately 500 meters away but failed to slow down, change lanes, or apply brakes.

The court convicted the defendant of careless driving, finding he drove below the standard of a reasonable motorist in similar circumstances.

The defendant was charged with three offences under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997: wilfully failing to inform the WSIB of a material change in circumstances between August 23, 2011 and September 25, 2012; and knowingly making false or misleading statements on September 9, 2011 and October 17, 2011 regarding his claim for benefits.

The prosecution presented evidence including testimony from a WSIB case manager and a private investigator, as well as surveillance video showing the defendant working at his former place of employment (Mystic Restaurant) while receiving benefits and claiming he was unable to work or drive.

The defendant was convicted on all three counts.

The defendant brought an application for a stay of proceedings for a violation of s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to unreasonable delay.

The charge arose from an alleged breach of a municipal bylaw regarding driving a motor vehicle on a beach.

The proceedings were initiated by private information by the plaintiff.

The court found that while institutional delay of 6.7 months fell below guideline thresholds, the total delay attributable to prosecution and other factors amounted to approximately 12 months of unreasonable delay when the appellate period was excluded.

The defendant demonstrated actual prejudice from the extended proceedings.

The court granted the application and stayed the charge.

The appellant was charged with driving without insurance under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

He was convicted at trial and sentenced to the minimum fine of $5,000.

He appealed both conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge denied him a fair trial by refusing to hear his pre-trial motions.

The appellant raised three motions: two based on Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Argument (OPCA) theories (that traffic laws apply only to corporations and that laws require consent to be binding) and one alleging breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The appeal court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the OPCA arguments were patently without merit and entitled to minimal consideration, and that the section 11(b) argument lacked merit as all trial adjournments were requested by the defendant.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for speeding 75 kilometres per hour in a 50 kilometres per hour zone.

The trial judge rejected evidence from the police officer regarding the margin of error (plus or minus two kilometres per hour) of the laser speed measuring device, ruling that such evidence constituted hearsay and that the officer was not qualified as an expert.

The appeal court found that the trial judge erred in rejecting this evidence, as the manufacturer's manual information was part of the officer's training and did not require expert qualification.

However, the appeal court upheld the conviction on the basis that the prosecutor need only establish that speeding occurred, with the excess speed being relevant only to penalty.

The sentence was varied to reflect the lower excess speed of 23 kilometres per hour rather than 25 kilometres per hour.

The defendant, a construction company, was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act with failing to ensure that a temporary wooden brace used in a winch system was designed and constructed to support or resist all loads and forces to which it was likely to be subjected.

The charge arose from a fatal construction accident in which a worker died when the wooden brace failed.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the wooden brace was inadequately designed and constructed for the likely forces it would encounter, given its intended use for achieving alignment rather than applying maximum force.

The court also found that the defendant exercised due diligence by relying on manufacturer instructions and industry standards.

The defendant was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with speeding (134 km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone) under the Highway Traffic Act.

He brought an application under 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 violated.

The overall delay from the laying of charges to the anticipated trial completion was 20 months and 18 days.

The court found that while 11 months and 22 days of this delay was attributable to institutional or systemic factors, the defendant failed to establish that he suffered actual or inferred prejudice as a result of the delay.

The application was denied.

The Meaford and District Fire Department faced three charges under section 25(2)(h) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from injuries to two firefighters at a structure fire on September 9, 2009.

The charges alleged failures to: (1) activate an accountability system to track firefighters; (2) maintain effective supervision through a command post; and (3) establish a Rapid Intervention Team.

Following the Crown's case, the defendant brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.

The court granted the motion on counts 4 and 6, finding insufficient evidence on the particulars alleged, but dismissed the motion on count 1, finding evidence capable of supporting a conviction.