Hans Saamen

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a charge for failing to stop at a stop sign under section 136(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The justice of the peace dismissed the charge because the police officer had no independent recollection of the specific events and relied solely on his notes.

The appellate court found this was reversible legal error, as the officer's notes qualified as a record of past recollection recorded and were properly admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The Regional Municipality of York appealed three sentencing decisions where a Justice of the Peace rejected joint submissions for $200 fines in traffic offences and imposed the statutory minimum fine of $85.00 instead.

The respondents had their charges reduced from speeding violations to the lesser charge of "disobey sign" contrary to the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellate court found that the Justice of the Peace erred in principle by failing to conduct a thoughtful analysis of why the joint submission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, failing to provide counsel with an opportunity to respond, and failing to consider the quid pro quo inherent in the charge reductions and demerit point savings.

The appeals were allowed and sentences were increased to $200.00.

The respondent was charged with speeding 104 km/h in a 60 km/h zone contrary to s. 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.

At trial, the respondent entered a guilty plea to the lesser charge of disobeying a sign contrary to s. 182(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted for a $100 fine.

The trial judge rejected the joint submission and imposed an $85 fine instead, citing concerns about inconsistent sentencing submissions by prosecutors in the region.

The trial judge also made adverse comments toward the Crown prosecutor when he attempted to cite binding provincial offence appeal authority.

The Regional Municipality of York appealed.

The appellant municipality appealed a sentence imposed by a Justice of the Peace who reduced a statutory minimum fine of $200 for failing to stop at a red light to $100.

The Justice of the Peace had announced in advance that she would never impose the statutory minimum fine and made comments suggesting bias against the prosecution.

The appellate court found that the Justice of the Peace erred by disregarding the statutory minimum penalty without evidence of exceptional circumstances or undue hardship justifying relief under section 59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was varied to the statutory minimum of $200 plus costs.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of a defendant charged with permitting fill to be placed on property without a permit, contrary to the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville By-Law No. 2008-016-RE.

The trial justice misdirected himself on the applicable legal issue, focusing on whether the defendant transported new fill rather than whether fill was placed or dumped.

Both parties agreed the decision should be set aside.

The appellate court declined to amend the information to substitute "dumping" for "placing" and enter a conviction, finding that the defendant would be prejudiced by such an amendment at the appellate stage.

The court remitted the matter for retrial and permitted the Crown to amend the information to include the alternative means of committing the offence.