Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Act matters

The accused pleaded guilty to careless driving causing death after a momentary lapse of attention resulted in her vehicle striking and killing an elderly pedestrian.

The court accepted a joint submission from the Crown and defence, emphasizing the regulatory nature of the offence, the accused's lack of prior record, her genuine remorse, and the tragic consequences of the collision.

The accused was sentenced to a $2,500 fine, a victim fine surcharge, and a 12-month probation order with restricted driving privileges and community service.

The appellant was convicted of careless driving and failing to report a snowmobile accident under the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act.

He appealed, arguing that the justice of the peace failed to consider his due diligence defence—specifically, his mistaken belief that he was uninjured and that the snowmobile damage was minor—and failed to provide sufficient reasons under the Sheppard standard.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the lower courts ignored the appellant's evidence regarding his condition, the apparent damage, and the trail conditions.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant was convicted of selling professional lacrosse tickets without a licence under s. 2(20) of By-Law 20-85.

On appeal, he argued that tickets are not 'goods' within the meaning of the by-law and that the municipality lacked the authority to enact the provision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that tickets fall within the ordinary meaning of 'goods' as movable personal property, and that the municipality had the necessary authority under the Municipal Act to enact the licensing by-law.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the appeal judge exhibited bias during the hearing.

The Court of Appeal found that while the appeal judge's remarks were rude and intemperate, they did not reach the level of actual or apparent bias.

The Court further held that there was no basis to interfere with the trial decision, as the Justice of the Peace was entitled to accept the police officer's testimony.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent employer was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was fatally injured by a reversing dump truck while acting as both a signaller and a spreader operator.

The trial judge directed a verdict of acquittal, ruling that the Crown could not prove a failure to provide a signaller under section 104 of the Regulation by showing the signaller failed to perform the duties prescribed by section 106.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the Crown's appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that sections 104 and 106 must be read together to promote the public safety purpose of the legislation, and ordered a new trial.