David I. Crocker

The respondent was charged with driving a commercial vehicle not equipped with a working speed limiting system contrary to section 68.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario.

At trial, the respondent challenged the constitutionality of the legislation, arguing it infringed his right to security of the person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by preventing him from accelerating to avoid dangerous driving situations.

The trial justice found in favour of the respondent and struck down the provision.

The Crown appealed.

The appellate court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the speed limiter legislation deprived him of security of the person, and that the legislation was not arbitrary.

The court also addressed the procedural issue of continuing the appeal following the respondent's death, substituting his widow as respondent in the interests of justice.

An appeal of a conviction under section 25(2)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace injury where a temporary employee's foot was crushed under a moving refuse truck wheel, resulting in amputation.

The trial judge convicted the employer of failing to provide adequate information, instruction, and supervision.

The appellate court found the trial judge erred by conflating the actus reus analysis with the due diligence defence, failing to properly evaluate whether the Crown proved the prohibited act beyond a reasonable doubt, and misapplying the law regarding delegation of supervisory responsibilities.

The court ordered a new trial.