Gerry McDougall

The appellant, Andrew Zaranek, appealed a conviction for operating a commercial vehicle and following too closely under section 158(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

He argued that the trial justice of the peace erred by finding the essential element of speed (exceeding 60 km/h) was proven, alleging judicial notice was improperly taken.

The appellate court found that proof of speed exceeding 60 km/h is an essential element for a charge under s. 158(2).

It clarified that the trial judge did not take judicial notice of speed, but rather inferred it from video evidence and took judicial notice of the Highway 401 speed limit.

The appellate court agreed that the video evidence supported a reasonable inference that the vehicle was travelling over 60 km/h.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed their convictions for driving a commercial motor vehicle with major brake defects.

The driver was charged under section 107 of the Highway Traffic Act, and the company was charged with operating a vehicle with push rod stroke exceeding prescribed limits under HTA Regulation 587.

The appellants challenged the convictions on four grounds: failure to distinguish between owner, operator, and driver; failure to consider due diligence; failure to establish the owner-operator's knowledge of defects; and failure to establish that brake testing was conducted in accordance with regulations.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the Crown proved the actus reus of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt and that the appellants failed to establish a factual basis for the due diligence defence.

An appeal of a conviction for failing to maintain a daily logbook as required under the Highway Traffic Act and Ontario Regulation 555/06.

The appellant was observed by a police officer attempting to complete his logbook while driving on Highway 401.

The logbook showed entries for Markham and Montreal with a partially drawn line.

The trial justice convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence that he had stopped in Montreal and failed to record the change in duty status.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding that the circumstantial evidence reasonably supported the inference that the appellant had changed his duty status without properly recording it in his logbook.

The accused was charged with careless driving under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act and failing to remain at the scene of an accident under section 200(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The incident occurred on March 9, 2011, on Highway 416 near the Highway 401 connection during poor winter driving conditions.

The accused's black SUV with diplomatic plates collided with a red Ford Mustang while attempting to pass.

Multiple independent witnesses testified that the accused drove too closely to the Mustang, flashed his lights to signal the driver to move lanes, and struck the vehicle while it was changing lanes.

The Mustang spun out of control and hit a guard rail.

The accused applied brakes briefly after the collision but then accelerated away at speeds up to 130 kph.

The court found the accused guilty of both charges, determining that his conduct constituted a sufficient departure from the standard of a prudent and reasonable driver and that he must have been aware of the collision given the circumstances.