Hugh David Locke

The appellant, a professional truck driver, was convicted of dangerous driving after his dump truck collided with the Burlington Skyway Bridge on the Queen Elizabeth Highway.

The collision occurred when the trailer box rose higher than the bridge's clearance because the Power Take-off (PTO) system was left engaged.

The appellant was detained in a police cruiser for approximately 2.5 hours at the accident scene, during which police detected the smell of alcohol on his breath.

The appellant challenged the admissibility of evidence relating to the alcohol detection, arguing the detention was arbitrary and his Charter rights were violated.

The trial judge excluded breath sample evidence but admitted the evidence of the smell of alcohol.

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving and sentenced to one year in custody.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld both the conviction and sentence.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with an approved screening device demand contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle contrary to section 249(1).

The Crown alleged the accused was operating a vehicle at excessive speeds (186 km/h in a 50 km/h zone), veering into oncoming traffic, and had alcohol in his system.

The accused was given 12 opportunities to provide a breath sample but failed to do so.

The trial judge found the Crown proved dangerous driving beyond a reasonable doubt but acquitted the accused on the failure to comply charge due to the absence of a final "last chance" warning and the possibility the accused requested one final opportunity to comply that was not documented or facilitated.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for dangerous driving and the resulting suspended sentence.

The conviction arose from a collision between the appellant's taxi cab and a moped, preceded by erratic driving including speeding, tailgating, and unsafe lane changes.

The appeal court found no material misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge, concluding that the appellant's driving constituted a marked departure from the norm.

The appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The Crown appealed an acquittal entered after it offered no further evidence following a ruling on a Charter motion.

The Court of Appeal stayed the appeal, finding the Crown failed to demonstrate that the Charter ruling was sufficiently important to prevent the prosecution from continuing.

The Court noted that other evidence, including a co-accused's accident report and testimony, was potentially available.

Allowing the appeal on such a sparse record would constitute an impermissible interlocutory appeal and an abuse of process.