H. DeBacker

The defendant was charged with careless driving causing death and bodily harm under the Highway Traffic Act following a collision with a semi-trailer.

The court heard both the trial on the merits and a Charter s. 11(b) delay motion.

The court found the defendant not guilty of careless driving, concluding that the collision was due to an unexpected and insufficiently warned-of hazard (a dark, slow-moving semi-trailer blocking the lane at night with inadequate reflective markings and no hazard lights), rather than the defendant's lack of due care.

Although the court found a Charter s. 11(b) breach due to prosecutorial delay, the motion was dismissed as moot given the acquittal.

The defendants were charged with discharging or causing the discharge of a pesticide (Headline) into the environment contrary to the Pesticides Act.

The Crown alleged that on July 23, 2013, a helicopter operated by the defendants sprayed pesticide near Highway 40 and St. Andrews Line in Chatham-Kent, causing material discomfort to two witnesses.

The trial hinged on identity and whether the pesticide was improperly used.

The court found that while the pesticide was detected and material discomfort was established, the Crown failed to prove identity and improper use beyond a reasonable doubt.

The critical evidence linking the defendants to the incident (Exhibit 13) was found to be unreliable due to authentication and reliability problems.

The defendants were acquitted.

The accused was charged with driving a motor vehicle carelessly contrary to Section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The charge arose from a fatal collision on June 11, 2015, between the accused's vehicle and a mobility scooter operated by the deceased on a residential street in Blenheim.

The Crown's case relied on the assertion that the deceased was visible on the roadway for six seconds prior to impact and that the accused's failure to see or take evasive action demonstrated careless driving.

The Defence challenged the Crown's reconstruction evidence, particularly the assumption of an unobstructed view.

The Court found the accused not guilty, determining that the Crown had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted of careless driving and pleaded guilty to driving while licence suspended.

On April 29, 2015, the accused drove a van with six passengers on Highway 3 in Leamington when a bee entered the driver's window.

The accused became distracted by the bee and failed to maintain attention on the road despite warnings from passengers.

This resulted in multiple overcorrections, the van rolling over, and two passengers being fatally injured.

The court imposed a sentence of 30 days incarceration, a two-year driving prohibition, and a $1,000 fine.

The court found that the accused's status as both never-licenced and suspended made non-custodial sanctions ineffective as deterrents.

The defendant was charged with careless driving contrary to Section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act and driving with a suspended licence contrary to Section 53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the suspended licence charge.

At trial, the court found the defendant guilty of careless driving after determining that the defendant's prolonged and repeated focus on a bee that entered the vehicle, rather than on the roadway and driving, fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable, average, careful driver.

The defendant's inattention led to the vehicle veering onto a gravel shoulder, overcorrecting multiple times, and ultimately rolling three to four times, resulting in two fatalities.

The court found that while the initial swatting at the bee was a reflexive action, the continued focus on the bee beyond that initial moment constituted careless driving.

This is a reverse onus judicial interim release (bail) hearing for FMD, charged with conspiracy to traffic cocaine and unlawfully import and traffic firearms across the Windsor-Detroit international border.

The Crown presented extensive audio and audio/video intercepted evidence from Project Kirby, a police investigation involving a paid police agent and undercover officers operating a covert store.

The evidence demonstrated FMD's role as the orchestrator and organizer of a sophisticated criminal enterprise involving multiple cocaine transactions totaling over 1.5 pounds and the trafficking of operational handguns.

The court found the Crown's case overwhelmingly strong and detained FMD on all three grounds: primary (flight risk), secondary (public protection), and tertiary (public confidence in the administration of justice).

The defendant was charged with stunt driving under Section 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act for driving 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit on EC Row Expressway in Windsor.

The Crown's case relied on radar evidence showing a speed reading of 150 km/h in a 100 km/h zone.

The court found the defendant not guilty because the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was travelling at 150 km/h.

While the court was satisfied the defendant was travelling at 140 km/h (40 km/h over the limit), the stunt driving charge requires proof of at least 50 km/h over the limit.

A commercial trucking company was charged with transporting dangerous goods (wet-filled acid batteries) without displaying required safety placards and labels in violation of the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act.

The defendant argued that an exemption under 49 CFR 173.159(e) applied because the shipment originated from the United States.

The court rejected this argument, finding that 173.159(e) pertains only to packaging and bracing requirements, not placarding and safety marking requirements.

The court held that the exemption under section 9.1 of the Canadian Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 only applies when United States placarding and marking requirements are met, which they were not.

The defendant was convicted.

A corporate defendant, JF Industrial Systems (Windsor) Inc., was charged with two offences under the Electricity Act: failing to apply for inspection of electrical work and operating an electrical contracting business without a licence.

The trial proceeded with evidence from an injured apprentice worker and the company's manager.

The defendant changed its plea to guilty on count two, and the prosecution withdrew count one.

The court found the defendant guilty of operating as an unlicensed electrical contractor.

The defendant was sentenced to a fine of $25,000, payable within 30 days.

The case involved a serious workplace injury to an apprentice who was electrocuted while working on electrical installations at an industrial facility.