A. Ross

The appellant appealed a conviction for failing to remain at the scene of an accident contrary to s. 252(1) of the Criminal Code.

The conviction rested largely on circumstantial evidence including a licence plate number, general eyewitness descriptions, and a voluntary statement indicating the accused and his wife were the only drivers of the vehicle.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, failed to address weaknesses in eyewitness identification, and failed to consider alternative explanations consistent with innocence.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court held that the trial judge’s oral reasons were insufficient because they did not meaningfully address the defence arguments or explain the path to the verdict.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The defendant pleaded guilty to misrepresenting her identity to claim refugee status under section 127(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted for a three-month conditional sentence.

The court rejected the joint submission, finding it contrary to the public interest, and instead imposed a suspended sentence with six months probation and conditions including reporting to a probation officer, counselling, and 20 hours of community service.

The court distinguished the case from similar immigration fraud cases based on the defendant's status as a Canadian citizen, her age and immaturity at the time of the offence, her genuine remorse, and the absence of economic loss to the public.

Defendants were charged with failing to maintain a minimum distance for an accessory building (shed) from the property line, contrary to Town of Richmond Hill Zoning By-law 128-04, section 5.1.4(a), and the Planning Act.

The shed was located 18 inches from the rear lot line when the applicable setback requirement was significantly greater (either 4 feet under the predecessor by-law or 7.5 metres under the amended by-law).

The defendants argued the property was zoned "Residential" rather than "Urban," that they had been charged under the wrong by-law, and that they had relied on prior court proceedings and town approvals.

The court found the property was zoned "Urban," the applicable by-law was By-law 128-04, and the shed violated the setback requirements.

The court rejected defences based on res judicata, abuse of process, officially induced error, and legal non-complying use.

The appellant suffered severe spinal injuries when a pleasure craft he was on struck rocks in tidal waters.

He sued the respondents in tort.

The respondents sought to limit their liability under ss. 647 and 649 of the Canada Shipping Act.

The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of these provisions, arguing they fell under provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provisions are intra vires Parliament as they are in pith and substance legislation in respect to Canadian maritime law, which extends to torts committed on navigable waters, including those involving pleasure craft.