2 total
The court imposed a maximum fine and probation rather than jail time for an elderly driver convicted of careless driving causing a child's death.
This is a sentencing decision for William Bannister, who pleaded guilty to careless driving causing the death of a 7-year-old child.
The accident occurred when Bannister made a left turn without due care, colliding with an oncoming vehicle.
The court considered the gravity of the offence, the defendant's significant carelessness, and his positive character, age, and genuine remorse.
Reviewing similar cases, the court determined that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate, imposing the maximum fine, probation, and driving suspension, but no jail time, distinguishing the moral blameworthiness from dangerous driving.
A reasonable belief that a tobacco purchaser appears over 25 constitutes a valid defence.
The appellant was convicted of selling tobacco to a person under 19 years old contrary to section 3(1) of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.
The trial judge found the appellant credible but convicted him on the basis that he conducted a subjective analysis rather than an objective one, and should have requested identification.
The appellant appealed, arguing that the due diligence defence was available where he honestly and reasonably believed the buyer appeared to be 25 years or older based on his training, experience, and observation.
The appellate court allowed the appeal, finding that section 3(2) of the Act contemplates that sellers need not request identification in all cases, and that an honest mistake of fact constitutes a valid defence where the seller has diligently assessed the buyer's apparent age using their knowledge and experience.
