Gordon V. Meakings

The defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle left of centre while upon a curve in the roadway, contrary to section 149(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant admitted to crossing into the opposing lane but claimed the conduct was involuntary due to a sudden episode of sneezing and watery eyes caused by allergies.

The court found that the defendant's testimony regarding the involuntary nature of his conduct was not sufficiently compelling and did not raise a reasonable doubt as to voluntariness.

The court determined that the actus reus of the strict liability offence was established beyond a reasonable doubt and found the defendant guilty.

The defendant did not establish a defence of due diligence.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to refuse to issue a Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) Certificate.

The appellant had previously been issued a conditional CVOR, which required maintaining a safety violation rate under 50% and passing a facility audit.

The appellant failed the facility audit and exceeded the safety violation rate.

Furthermore, the appellant continued to operate commercial vehicles without a valid CVOR, demonstrating a disregard for highway safety laws.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's refusal to issue the CVOR.

The Applicant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration (CVOR) certificate.

The Registrar argued that the Applicant was controlled by an individual whose previous trucking companies had their CVOR certificates cancelled due to catastrophic safety records.

The Tribunal found that the individual in question did control or manage the Applicant, making him a related person under the Highway Traffic Act.

Considering the combined safety record, the Tribunal concluded there was reason to believe the Applicant would not operate safely and ordered the cancellation of the CVOR certificate.

The appellant, owner of a meat processing plant, requested a review of a Tribunal decision that upheld a Director's five-day licence suspension for failing to keep daily records of the plant's water disinfection system.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred by relying on the Ministry's evidence over his own.

The Tribunal denied the request for review, finding that the original decision was based on credible evidence from the Ministry's witnesses, including an expert, which refuted the appellant's claims.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisals by his former employer.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application, arguing it was barred by a settlement agreement signed by the parties that ended the applicant's employment and included a full and final release.

The Tribunal interpreted the agreement, noting a specific clause preserving the applicant's right to make complaints to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the specific clause modified the general release, allowing the applicant to proceed with claims of harassment and reprisal during his employment, but barring him from challenging the termination of his employment or seeking reinstatement.

The appellant, owner of a meat processing plant, appealed a decision by the Director suspending his operating licence for five days for failing to keep daily written records of water disinfection (chlorine levels).

The Tribunal found that the Food Safety and Quality Act, its regulations, and the Safe Drinking Water Act require the operator to conduct daily testing of the chlorine level, retain the results in writing, and provide them to inspectors upon request.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to meet these statutory obligations and confirmed the Director's decision to suspend the licence.