C. Gelbard

The defendant was charged with racing a motor vehicle on a highway contrary to section 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, specifically for outdistancing or attempting to outdistance another vehicle while driving at a marked departure from the lawful speed limit.

The Crown's evidence, provided by a police constable, alleged the defendant was driving in the northbound lane at 110-120 km/h beside another vehicle.

The defendant testified he remained in the southbound lane at approximately 60 km/h, attempting to pass a stopped vehicle.

The court found the defendant's evidence credible and, when considered in context with all evidence, raised a reasonable doubt as to whether he was outdistancing another vehicle or driving at a marked departure from the lawful speed.

The defendant was acquitted of racing but convicted of the included offence of speeding.

The defendant was charged with two offences under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act: operating a motor vehicle without insurance and knowingly using a false insurance card.

The trial proceeded in the defendant's absence.

The Crown proved that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle on Highway 403 in Oakville on November 7, 2011, and that she was the registered owner of the vehicle.

The defendant's insurance policy had been cancelled on October 8, 2011, due to non-payment of premiums.

The defendant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the vehicle was insured at the time of the offence.

The defendant also failed to establish the defence of reasonable care.

The Crown stayed the second count, and the defendant was convicted on the first count.

The defendant was charged with two offences: speeding at 88 km/h in a posted 50 km/h community safety zone, and failing to surrender a motor vehicle permit upon demand by a police officer.

The trial proceeded over multiple dates with conflicting evidence from the defendant and the investigating officer regarding both the speed of the vehicle and whether the permit was actually surrendered.

The court found the defendant guilty of both charges.

The speeding charge was classified as an absolute liability offence, requiring only proof of the prohibited act.

The permit charge was classified as a strict liability offence, allowing for a due diligence defence, which the defendant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities.

An appeal of a careless driving conviction under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant was charged after a motor vehicle collision that resulted in a pedestrian fatality.

The appellant claimed he suffered an involuntary coughing/choking episode that caused his eyes to close for several seconds, during which he lost control of his vehicle.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty, rejecting his due diligence defence.

The appellate court allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal, finding the trial judge misapprehended the evidence by inferring the appellant had "chosen" to close his eyes and by characterizing several seconds of driving as an "extended period."

The defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle on a highway while his driver's licence was suspended contrary to section 53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown proved the actus reus of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt: the defendant drove on May 14, 2011, while his licence was suspended effective April 14, 2008, for unpaid fines.

The defendant raised the due diligence defence, arguing he held an honest and reasonable but mistaken belief that his licence was not suspended.

The court found that although the defendant may have honestly believed his licence was valid, his belief was not objectively reasonable.

The defendant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the status of his licence despite knowing of the 2008 suspension, failing to pay the outstanding fine, and failing to notify the Ministry of Transportation of address changes.

The court found the defendant guilty.