G. Hume

The applicant, charged with careless driving, brought a s. 11(b) Charter motion for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The central issue was whether the 12-month period taken to schedule an early resolution meeting constituted defence delay.

The court found this period to be institutional delay, not defence delay, as early resolution meetings are a legitimate procedural step and defendants have no control over the meeting date.

With a total delay of 18 months and 29 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for Provincial Offences Act matters, and the respondent failing to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness, the motion was granted, and proceedings were stayed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for using a handheld device while driving, arguing that his Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) had been infringed.

The appellant had brought a pre-trial application to stay the charge, which was dismissed by the Justice of the Peace.

The appeal court found that the presiding Justice of the Peace erred in law by failing to provide proper analysis of the Charter application.

However, the appellate judge conducted both a pre-Jordan and post-Jordan analysis and found that the application was properly dismissed.

The total delay of 10 months and 18 days fell within acceptable guidelines, and the appellant suffered no demonstrable prejudice from the delay.

The defendant was charged with three Highway Traffic Act offences: driving while his Ontario driver's licence was suspended, using a driver's licence from another jurisdiction while suspended in Ontario, and driving without current validation on the number plate.

The defendant claimed he had been advised by a Ministry of Transportation customer service representative that he could legally drive using his Nigerian International Driver's Permit despite his suspended Ontario licence.

The court rejected the defence of officially induced error of law, finding that the defendant failed to establish all necessary elements on a balance of probabilities.

The court convicted the defendant on all three counts.

The defendant, a professional truck driver with 22 years of experience, was charged with careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act after colliding with a stopped crash truck on Highway 401 near Mississauga.

The crash truck was equipped with flashing amber lights and a large illuminated arrow sign directing traffic away from the right lane.

The defendant claimed he could not see the crash truck because a vehicle in front of him blocked his view and that safety cones had been removed moments before the collision.

The court found the defendant's testimony not credible and concluded he had observed the flashing lights from approximately 500 meters away but failed to slow down, change lanes, or apply brakes.

The court convicted the defendant of careless driving, finding he drove below the standard of a reasonable motorist in similar circumstances.