Derek Knipe

The appellant appealed his conviction for using invalid fare media contrary to section 2.3(a) of the Toronto Transit Commission By-Law.

The original conviction was based on three alleged breaches: failure to take the most direct route, improper re-entry into the subway system, and using the transfer outside a reasonable time period.

The appellate court found that the trial was procedurally unfair because the prosecution introduced a new theory of liability regarding travel time during re-examination without proper notice, and the trial judge improperly prevented the appellant from cross-examining the witness on the evidentiary basis for the travel time estimate.

The court also found that the conviction could not be sustained on the re-entry theory alone due to insufficient evidence.

A new trial was ordered.

The applicant brought Charter applications under sections 8 and 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the context of a trial on Highway Traffic Act charges.

The applicant challenged the validity of a search warrant for cellular telephone records on the basis that the Information to Obtain was misleading and that the Justice of the Peace erred in issuing the warrant.

The applicant also sought a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay.

The court found that while the Information to Obtain contained minor inaccuracies, it was not materially misleading and the Justice of the Peace did not err in issuing the warrant.

However, the court excluded evidence relating to the actual text or content of SMS messages as an unreasonable breach of section 8 rights.

The court dismissed the section 11(b) application, finding that the delay of approximately 7.5 months from trial readiness to trial date fell within constitutionally tolerable limits for provincial offences matters.

A bus driver employed by the Toronto Transit Commission was charged with failing to stop at a red light and careless driving following a collision with a pedestrian that resulted in death.

The defendant was operating a bus that struck and killed a pedestrian at an intersection controlled by traffic signals.

The Crown presented three civilian witnesses and an expert in collision reconstruction.

The defence called the defendant and an expert in driving instruction.

The court found the defendant not guilty of both charges, determining that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant ran a red light, and that the defendant's driving did not constitute careless driving under the applicable legal standard.