4 total
Leave to appeal granted for speeding conviction due to evidentiary and procedural errors.
The applicant sought leave to appeal a Provincial Offences Appeal Court decision dismissing his appeal from a conviction for speeding.
The applicant was charged with speeding on Highway 2 in the Region of Durham, clocked at 107 km/h in a 70 km/h zone.
He was convicted at trial and again at a retrial after his first conviction was overturned due to a misapplication of the rule in R. v. W.(D.).
The motion judge granted leave to appeal on three grounds: (1) misapplication of the W.(D.) rule by the Justice of the Peace; (2) improper restriction of cross-examination regarding prior inconsistent testimony; and (3) failure to provide adequate assistance to a self-represented accused.
Applicant permitted to reopen case to call newly located key witness.
The self-represented applicant requested to reopen his case after the hearing of evidence had concluded, in order to call a witness whose contact information he had previously lost.
The respondent objected but pointed to no specific prejudice.
The Tribunal applied the factors for reopening a case and found that the witness's evidence was relevant and potentially key, and that any prejudice to the respondent could be remedied by allowing cross-examination and reply evidence.
The request to adduce new evidence was granted to ensure a fair and just adjudication.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of overlapping Canadian Human Rights Commission complaint.
The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of disability by failing to provide captioning for televised council meetings.
The applicant also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) against Rogers TV-Durham raising the same allegations.
Due to the overlapping factual and legal issues and the absence of any opposition, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the CHRC complaint.
Leave to appeal ARB property classification decision denied.
The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from a decision of the Assessment Review Board classifying a gas gate station property as industrial rather than commercial under Ontario Regulation 282/98.
The applicant argued that its primary business at the property was the distribution of natural gas and that the addition of odorant to the gas did not constitute “processing” within the meaning of the regulation.
The court held that the Board reasonably concluded that the addition of odorant constituted a significant qualitative change necessary for the gas to be legally distributed and therefore amounted to processing connected with production of a saleable product.
Applying the deferential standard applicable to leave applications under the Assessment Act, the court found no sufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the Board’s decision and no issue of sufficient legal importance to warrant review by the Divisional Court.
Leave to appeal was refused.
