2 total
The defendant was convicted of driving while suspended after the court rejected his unreliable alibi evidence.
The defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle on a highway while his driver's licence was suspended, contrary to subsection 53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.
The Crown alleged the defendant was driving his wife's pick-up truck from his residence to a casino parking lot on November 9, 2015.
The defence claimed the defendant's employee was driving and the defendant was a passenger.
The court found the defendant guilty after assessing credibility and applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework.
The defence evidence contained numerous inconsistencies regarding who was driving, the distance travelled, speeds, and the location of witnesses, rendering it unreliable.
The Crown's evidence from the police officer was straightforward and consistent.
The defendant was convicted of stunt driving, driving while suspended, and having open liquor, after his necessity defence was rejected.
The defendant was charged with four offences arising from driving a red Mustang at 218 km/h in a 100 km/h zone on Highway 401 while fleeing from individuals in a green Audi: performing a stunt, racing, driving with a suspended licence, and operating a motor vehicle with open liquor readily available.
The defendant claimed the defence of necessity, asserting he feared the occupants of the Audi would shoot him and his cousin.
The court found all elements of the offences proven beyond a reasonable doubt but rejected the necessity defence on a modified objective standard, finding reasonable legal alternatives were available.
The court applied the Kienapple principle to preclude dual convictions for performing a stunt and racing, staying the racing charge.
The defendant was convicted of performing a stunt, driving with a suspended licence, and operating a motor vehicle with open liquor.
