Gerry Manno

The defendant was charged with holding a handheld communication device while driving, contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.

The charge arose from an incident on May 16, 2018 in Oakville.

At trial, the Crown's officer testified that the offence occurred at 4:53 p.m., while the Provincial Offence Notice indicated 4:36 p.m., creating a 17-minute discrepancy.

The defendant moved for a directed verdict based on this discrepancy.

The court rejected the motion, finding that time is not an essential element of the offence under provincial offences law.

The defendant called no evidence and mounted no defence.

The court found the Crown had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted the defendant.

A provincial offence trial under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act concerning whether a tobacco retailer failed to post prescribed government identification signs in a conspicuous manner as required by regulation.

The Crown alleged the defendant failed to post the identification sign where tobacco transactions occurred.

The defendant argued the sign was posted conspicuously on the countertop near the cashier and that even if the actus reus was proven, a due diligence defence applied.

The court found the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt due to conflicting testimony regarding sign placement and visibility.

The defendant was acquitted.

The court also found that had the actus reus been proven, the defendant would have successfully mounted a due diligence defence based on the owner's comprehensive compliance systems, training procedures, and reasonable care measures.

The defendant was charged with holding a handheld communication device while driving contrary to the Highway Traffic Act.

During trial, the defendant moved to exclude the charging officer's electronic notes on the grounds that the officer could not attest to the security of the notes or confirm that no one else had access to alter them while they were outside his personal possession.

The court ruled that the officer could use the notes to refresh his memory, finding that while the officer lacked knowledge of the technical security features of the electronic system, the absence of evidence of actual alteration, combined with the officer's independent recollection and the disclosure of the notes to the defence, was sufficient to permit their use as a memory aid.

A bail hearing for an accused charged with attempted murder using a firearm, multiple weapons offences, and drug possession.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds under section 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

The accused proposed a four-surety release plan with house arrest and strict conditions.

The court found the Crown's case exceptionally strong, the offence grave, and the risk to public safety and the victim significant.

The court detained the accused on both secondary and tertiary grounds, finding that the sureties, while well-meaning, were inadequate to supervise the accused given the serious nature of the allegations and the accused's apparent concealment of criminal activity from his family.

The defendant employer was charged with failing to ensure that measures and procedures prescribed by Ontario Regulation 213/91 were carried out in a workplace, contrary to section 25(1)(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

A worker was fatally injured when a curb machine tipped over during unloading from a float trailer.

The Crown proved the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt, establishing that the worker was endangered by the movement of the equipment.

However, the defendant successfully established the defence of due diligence on a balance of probabilities, demonstrating that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the incident.

The court found that the worker was highly experienced, had successfully unloaded the same machine 27 times previously, and deviated from established safety procedures on the day of the incident by failing to use the wooden block ramp and leaving the machine's controls on automatic rather than manual.

The charge was dismissed.

The Ministry of Labour charged Thomson Metals and Disposal GP Inc. with three offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace accident on June 4, 2014, involving a Caterpillar 325B excavator.

The operator's cab became separated from the machine, injuring the worker.

The charges alleged: (1) failure to ensure the equipment was equipped with a seat belt; (2) failure to ensure the operator cabin was securely fastened to the chassis; and (3) failure to take reasonable precautions to ensure bolts and washers met manufacturer's specifications.

After a four-day trial, the court dismissed all three charges, finding that the Crown failed to prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court determined that there was insufficient evidence that the excavator was originally equipped with a seat belt, and that the bolts and washers were consistent with manufacturer's specifications at the time of purchase.

The defendant employer was charged with failing to ensure compliance with section 37(1) of Ontario Regulation 213/91, which requires that material or equipment at a construction project be stored and moved in a manner that does not endanger a worker.

A transport driver employed by the defendant was fatally crushed when a curb machine tipped over while being unloaded from a float trailer.

The defendant brought a motion for non-suit, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt because the cause of the accident was not established.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the prosecution need not prove how the accident occurred, only that the prohibited act (moving equipment in a manner that endangered a worker) took place.

The fact that a worker was fatally injured constituted prima facie evidence of endangerment.

An application under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 11(b), challenging delay in the prosecution of charges for driving while suspended under the Highway Traffic Act and speeding.

The applicant argued that the total delay of approximately 25 months, with institutional delay exceeding the Morin guideline of 8-10 months, constituted a breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time.

The Crown argued that the delay calculation should commence only when both parties were ready for trial, which was January 21, 2015, resulting in approximately 6 months of Crown/institutional delay.

The court found no breach of section 11(b) rights and dismissed the motion, allowing the charges to proceed to trial.

The defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle while his driver's license was suspended under the Highway Traffic Act, contrary to section 53(1).

The Crown alleged the defendant drove on May 18, 2012, in Burlington while suspended for unpaid fines.

The defendant claimed he had no knowledge of the suspension, arguing he did not receive the notice of suspension and believed he had obtained an extension to pay his fines through a telephone conversation with a courthouse clerk.

The court found the actus reus proven beyond a reasonable doubt and determined the defendant failed to establish the defence of due diligence or honest and reasonable mistake of fact on a balance of probabilities.

The defendant was convicted.

The defendant was charged with two offences under Christopher's Law (Sex Offender Registry) 2000: failing to report a change of registered address within 15 days and providing false information to police.

The defendant brought a voire dire motion to exclude statements made during a police interview, alleging violations of Charter rights to counsel and to silence.

The court found that police effectively detained the defendant psychologically during the interview without providing Charter cautions at the appropriate time, thereby breaching sections 10(a) and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court excluded all statements made by the defendant during the October 20, 2009 police interview.