The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to yield to a pedestrian under section 140(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act.
The appellant argued that the offence should have been charged under section 144(7) of the Highway Traffic Act because the pedestrian was struck at a signalized intersection (crosswalk) rather than at a pedestrian crossover as defined in the regulations.
The court held that the substance of the offence—failing to yield to a pedestrian with the legal right of way—is the same under both sections, and that form does not trump substance.
The court found no prejudice to the appellant and upheld the conviction.
