2 total
The court allowed the appeal, ruling that a certified statement of evidence proves a speeding charge absent non-speculative contrary evidence.
The Regional Municipality of York appealed the dismissal of a speeding charge against the respondent, which was originally dismissed by a Justice of the Peace who found the certified statement evidence insufficient due to "unanswered questions" regarding the speed measurement device.
The appeal court found that the Justice of the Peace erred by relying on speculation rather than inferences reasonably arising from the evidence.
As the certified statements were deemed proof of facts in the absence of evidence to the contrary under the Provincial Offences Act, and no such contrary evidence was presented, the appeal was allowed.
Conviction appeal dismissed; sentence appeal allowed in part to reduce custodial term to six months.
The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for fraud.
They argued that a statement made during a vehicle stop should have been excluded due to Charter breaches.
The Court of Appeal assumed a s. 10(a) breach but found the statement admissible under s. 24(2), noting the breach was not serious and the officer acted in good faith.
The court also found no s. 8 or s. 10(b) breaches.
The statement was admissible against the co-accused as an adoptive admission by silence.
The conviction appeal was dismissed.
On the sentence appeal, the court agreed a conditional sentence was unwarranted but reduced the custodial sentences to six months imprisonment to better reflect specific deterrence and rehabilitation.
Restitution orders were maintained but clarified as joint and several.
