C. Gabriel

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the appeal of Xiao-Ming Kuang against his conviction for disobeying a stop sign under section 136(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The trial Justice of the Peace's findings, including the credibility and reliability of the arresting officer, were upheld as reasonably open on the evidence.

The court emphasized the probative value of the in-car camera video, which clearly showed the appellant failing to stop at the stop sign.

The appeal was rejected as it amounted to a request for a retrial or reweighing of evidence, which is not permitted absent palpable and overriding error.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed Susan Romualdi's appeal against her conviction for driving while holding or using a handheld communication device under section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The court held that the prosecution was not required to prove that the device was capable of receiving or transmitting data wirelessly, relying on the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Pizzurro.

The Justice of the Peace's findings that the appellant was holding a cell phone were reasonable and supported by the evidence, including detailed observations by the police officer.

The court further found no reversal of the burden of proof by the Justice of the Peace, as the officer's evidence was uncontradicted and credible.

Four appellants appealed speeding convictions entered under certificate evidence provisions in Provincial Offences Act proceedings.

The appeal court upheld the dismissal of the joint Charter attack on the certificate evidence regime, finding no legal error in the conclusion that the scheme does not itself deny a fair trial where statutory mechanisms exist to compel attendance for cross-examination.

However, three individual appeals succeeded on separate grounds: one because the trial justice misapplied the test for compelling the officer's attendance, one because the trial reasons were insufficient to explain rejection of defence evidence and permit appellate review, and one because summary dismissal of multiple applications without hearing submissions or considering fairness caused a miscarriage of justice.

The fourth appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

The appellant, Wing Cheung, appealed his conviction for driving while holding or using a hand-held device, seeking to strike his guilty plea.

He argued that the prosecutor failed to provide advice and the court did not conduct a plea inquiry, particularly regarding potential insurance consequences.

The court found that prosecutors are not obligated to provide legal advice or inform about private collateral consequences like insurance.

The plea was voluntary and unequivocal, and the failure to conduct a s. 45 Provincial Offences Act inquiry does not invalidate the plea.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with careless driving under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act following a two-vehicle collision at the intersection of 16th Avenue and Woodbine Avenue in Markham on May 1, 2016.

Both drivers claimed to have a green traffic light.

The court found the traffic control signals were functioning properly and that both the east/west and north/south lights could not have been green simultaneously.

Based on credibility assessments and the pattern of vehicle damage, the court rejected the defendant's evidence and accepted the complainant's testimony that he had a green light while the defendant proceeded through a red light.

The defendant was convicted of careless driving.

The appellant appealed his convictions on two charges under the Consumer Protection Act relating to a swimming pool contract.

The charges alleged failure to deliver a direct agreement containing required information and engaging in unfair practices by making false representations about completion timelines.

The trial proceeded ex parte as the appellant did not attend.

On appeal, the court found the trial judge's reasons inadequate and identified significant evidentiary gaps, including discrepancies regarding the contract date, uncertainty about the identity of the business entity, and insufficient evidence linking the appellant to the transaction.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.