A. Senkus

The defendant was charged with driving while holding a hand-held communication device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant admitted to holding her cell phone while driving on the Queen Elizabeth Way but claimed the defence of necessity, arguing that the phone was slipping out of its dashboard holder and she feared it would fall to the floor and interfere with her ability to control the vehicle.

The court found that while the defendant perceived imminent peril, she had a reasonable legal alternative (pulling onto the shoulder) and the harm inflicted (distracted driving) outweighed the harm avoided.

The court also rejected the defence of due diligence, finding the defendant failed to take all reasonable steps to avoid the offence.

The defendant was convicted.

The defendant was charged with speeding at 105 km/h in a posted 60 km/h zone on Dundas Street in Oakville.

The prosecution relied on Lidar speed measurements taken by a trained police officer.

The defendant testified she was traveling at approximately 40 km/h due to traffic lights and her vehicle's standard transmission limitations.

The court found the defendant guilty of the included offence of speeding at 95 km/h in a posted 60 km/h zone, accepting the officer's evidence regarding the speed readings near Meadowridge Drive while finding reasonable doubt regarding the initial 105 km/h reading near Prince Michael Drive.

The defendant was charged with disobeying a "No U Turn" sign contrary to section 182(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

A police officer observed a grey four-door motor vehicle execute a prohibited U-turn at the intersection of Postridge Drive and Dalebrook Drive in Oakville and subsequently stopped a vehicle matching that description on Trafalgar Road, driven by the defendant.

The defendant's representative argued that the prosecution failed to establish continuity of observation and therefore failed to prove the defendant was the driver of the offending vehicle.

The court found the offence to be one of strict liability, accepted the officer's credible and reliable testimony regarding vehicle identification, and found the prosecution proved all elements of the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant did not establish a due diligence defence and was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with failing to stop on the right for an emergency vehicle contrary to section 159(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown alleged that on October 12, 2009, the defendant failed to immediately stop her vehicle near the right-hand curb when a fire truck with siren sounding and emergency lights flashing approached from behind.

The defendant denied that the fire truck had approached her vehicle.

The court found that the offence is a strict liability regulatory offence and that the Crown proved the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt based on credible police officer testimony.

The defendant failed to establish the due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities, as her mistaken belief that the fire truck had not approached was not objectively reasonable given that she had initially observed the truck 500-1,000 metres behind her and should have taken immediate steps to move to the right lane.