Donald Dudar

The Crown sought to establish a peace bond under section 810 of the Criminal Code against the defendant following a separation dispute.

The complainant alleged threats and concerning behaviour during property division proceedings.

The defence brought a motion for non-suit or directed verdict at the close of the Crown's case, arguing insufficient evidence of reasonable grounds for fear.

The court found that while the complainant harboured fear at the time the information was sworn, the evidence did not establish reasonable grounds for such fear at the time of hearing, approximately ten months later.

The court granted the defence motion, finding that the passage of time, absence of contact between parties, and lack of acrimony in subsequent interactions undermined the reasonableness of the fear.

The defendant was charged with driving while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

An investigating officer observed the defendant operating a tractor-trailer and believed he saw the defendant holding a cell phone.

Upon stopping the vehicle, the officer photographed a Motorola device in the cab.

The defendant testified he was holding a water bottle and that the device in question was a scanner used to record delivery details for his employer, not a communication device capable of making phone calls.

The court found reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was holding a hand-held communications device or another object, and dismissed the charge.

The defendant pleaded guilty to driving with a suspended license and operating a motor vehicle without insurance.

The Crown sought statutory minimum fines of $2,000 and $5,000 respectively.

The court imposed reduced fines of $1,200 and $750, exercising discretion under s.59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act to depart from minimum penalties where exceptional circumstances exist.

The court considered Gladue principles applicable to Aboriginal offenders, the defendant's systemic disadvantages, poverty, and lack of access to court processes, while maintaining that public safety and deterrence remain essential sentencing objectives.

The defendant was charged under the Dog Owners Liability Act with failing to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent her dog from biting a person.

The complainant alleged that the defendant's German shepherd bit her while she was riding her bicycle on a public road.

The defendant maintained that her dog was properly secured when she left the property and that the complainant frequently trespassed on her property and provoked the dogs.

The court found the defendant not guilty, determining that the steps taken by the defendant to secure her dog constituted reasonable precautions, particularly given the absence of prior aggressive behaviour by the dog and the ambiguity regarding where the bite occurred.

The defendant was charged with three counts of driving while her license was suspended and operating a motor vehicle without insurance.

The Crown's evidence established that a police officer observed the defendant operating a motor vehicle on August 20, 2013.

The defendant and a civilian witness testified that the defendant was a passenger and that another individual was driving.

The court found the defendant's evidence and that of the civilian witness not credible due to significant inconsistencies and implausibilities.

The court accepted the officer's evidence and found the defendant guilty of the three driving while suspended charges.

The insurance charge was dismissed by Crown concession.

The defendant was convicted after entering guilty pleas to five counts under the Highway Traffic Act: driving while license suspended, owning and driving a motor vehicle without insurance, failing to notify the Ministry of Transportation of vehicle ownership, using an unauthorized license plate, and not having a validated permit.

The defendant had an extensive driving record including nine prior convictions for driving suspended and six for operating without insurance.

The prosecution sought custody on two counts and a substantial fine for the insurance offense.

The defense argued for concurrent sentencing given the defendant's concurrent criminal convictions totaling 43 months.

The court imposed four months custody consecutive to existing sentences for the drive suspended offense, 15 days concurrent for the plate infraction, a $10,000 fine for the insurance offense with a 60-month payment period, and suspended sentence on the remaining charges.

The defendant entered a guilty plea to driving while his license was suspended under the Highway Traffic Act.

After conviction was entered, the court discovered that the defendant was also facing a related Criminal Code charge of "drive disqualified" arising from the same circumstances.

The justice struck the conviction and underlying plea, finding that the municipal partner court lacked administrative authority to proceed when criminal proceedings had been commenced in relation to the same circumstances, pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding between the Crown and the City of Brantford.

The matter was directed to be marked returnable to the same court when the related Criminal Code charge would be considered.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle carelessly contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act and, as a young driver, operating with blood alcohol concentration above zero contrary to section 44.5 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown presented evidence of an overturned vehicle at an accident scene, observations of impairment, and breath test results showing blood alcohol above zero.

The defendant presented no evidence.

The court found that the Crown established a prima facie case from which careless driving could be inferred, and the defendant's failure to provide an explanation resulted in conviction on both counts.

The Children's Aid Society of Brant applied ex parte for a warrant to apprehend a child in need of protection.

The child was residing with her biological mother in a shelter following the mother's separation from the child's biological father, who faced assault charges and was bound by release conditions prohibiting contact with the mother and child.

The CAS alleged the father had repeatedly breached his release conditions and that the mother might return to the matrimonial relationship.

The court denied the application, finding that the Information to Obtain failed to establish that the child was in need of protection, particularly given that both the child and mother were safely residing in a shelter with protective measures in place.

The applicant, a motor vehicle dealer, brought a motion for relief under section 11(b) and section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that its right to be tried within a reasonable time had been breached.

The applicant was charged with two offences under the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002 for allegedly failing to ensure advertisements complied with the Act.

The motion was heard on May 21, 2014, and decision was rendered on September 12, 2014.

The court applied the four-factor test from R. v. Askov to assess the delay claim.

While the court found that the total delay of approximately 47 months from the alleged offence to the motion was prima facie excessive, and that approximately 28 months of that delay was attributable to institutional limitations and Crown conduct, the court concluded that the applicant had not established irremedial prejudice to its fair trial interests.

The court dismissed the motion and directed that the trial proceed on its merits.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle without insurance and failing to display license plates.

The central issue was whether the vehicle operated by the defendant—a power-assisted bicycle with detachable pedals that were removed at the time of operation—constituted a "motor vehicle" under the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found that the vehicle qualified as a power-assisted bicycle within the statutory exception to the definition of motor vehicle, and therefore was not required to be registered or insured.

The charges were dismissed.

The Crown prosecuted Hernder Farms Limited and its director Gottfried Hernder under the Ontario Water Resources Act for operating an unapproved sewage system and discharging raw sewage into a tributary of Richardson's Creek.

The defendants installed a holding tank and leaching bed system without obtaining required approval from the Ministry of the Environment.

In June 2008, a crack in the pipe caused effluent to percolate to the ground surface and flow into the watercourse, causing visible discoloration.

The court found the defendants guilty of all charges, rejecting the defence arguments that approval had been granted, that the discharge was de minimus, and that the defendant exercised due diligence in operating the system.

The defendant, a used car dealer, was charged with failing to comply with a Property Standards Order requiring removal of unlicensed vehicles from his residential property.

The defendant challenged the by-law on multiple grounds, including spelling of the word "license" the distinction between licensing and plating in Ontario, and the requirement to comply absent evidence of actual removal on the compliance date.

The court rejected all defenses, finding the by-law enforceable as written, that common usage supports the interpretation of "license" as referring to vehicle plates, and that the compliance date is merely a temporal marker rather than a single point of inspection.

The defendant's credibility regarding claimed compliance was found suspect given his stated opposition to the by-law and failure to appeal the order.

The court convicted the defendant, finding he failed to establish due diligence.