David Dyer

Crown appeal of an acquittal on a charge of careless driving contrary to s. 130 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.

The respondent was operating a tractor-trailer that struck the rear of a milk truck on a rural highway.

The trial judge acquitted the respondent, finding that while the respondent's conduct fell below the standard of a reasonable driver, it did not constitute careless driving because it was merely inadvertent negligence and the respondent had been driving properly for approximately five kilometres prior to the incident.

The appellate court allowed the appeal and registered a conviction, clarifying the legal test for careless driving as a strict liability offence and rejecting the trial judge's erroneous application of additional elements.

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo sought an order directing that charges against the defendants for engaging in a prohibited activity on courthouse premises be tried by a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice rather than a justice of the peace.

The defendants had been charged under the Trespass to Property Act for protesting and distributing literature on the courthouse steps on August 9, 2013.

The defendants raised a Charter challenge alleging breaches of sections 2 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown and the intervenor (Ontario) consented to the application.

The Regional Senior Justice granted the application, finding that the broader public interest, precedent value, and complexity of Charter issues warranted judicial assignment despite the usual practice of assigning provincial offence matters to justices of the peace.

The defendant was charged with failing to move over, if safe to do so, contrary to section 159(3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant was operating a motor vehicle in Lane 1 of a three-lane highway when he approached a police cruiser parked on the left shoulder with emergency lights activated.

The defendant did not reduce his speed while passing the police vehicle.

The court found that the defendant breached section 159(3) by failing to reduce speed and proceed with caution, which are mandatory requirements under the statute.

The court did not need to consider whether the defendant could have safely moved to another lane, as the failure to slow down was sufficient for conviction.

The defendant was charged with operating a motorcycle with handlebars exceeding the maximum height of 380 millimetres as prescribed by Ontario Regulation 596, section 10(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant challenged the constitutionality of the regulation on grounds of vagueness and anachronism, arguing violations of sections 7, 9, and 26 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found the regulation was not vague, not anachronistic, and did not violate the defendant's Charter rights.

The defendant was convicted after the prosecution proved the handlebars measured 830 millimetres above the seat.

The appellant appealed his conviction for disobeying a "No Heavy Trucks" sign contrary to section 182(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The trial justice convicted the appellant after finding that the dump truck he was operating fell within the plain and ordinary meaning of "heavy truck," despite the absence of a statutory definition in the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal court upheld the conviction, finding that the trial justice properly applied principles of statutory interpretation and that the evidence clearly established the vehicle was a heavy truck based on its characteristics and the context of the regulation.

The appellant appealed his conviction for failure to properly wear a seatbelt contrary to section 106(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

A police officer observed the appellant driving a dump truck without an apparent shoulder restraint during a brief observation of approximately 20 to 30 seconds at a traffic light intersection.

The trial justice convicted the appellant based on the officer's evidence.

On appeal, the court found that the appellant's evidence, though not explicitly stating he was wearing a seatbelt, logically conveyed that he was wearing one at all times.

The court determined the trial justice misapplied the burden of proof and failed to properly apply the W.(D.) test for assessing credibility and reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and an acquittal was entered.