3 total
The defendant was convicted of careless driving after rear-ending a vehicle stopped at a red light.
The defendant was charged with careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act following a motor vehicle collision on May 7, 2013, at the intersection of Finch Avenue West and Jane Street in Toronto.
The Crown alleged the defendant was following too closely, was distracted by a cellular telephone, and failed to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle ahead, resulting in a rear-end collision.
The defendant claimed she was exercising reasonable care and that the vehicle ahead stopped unexpectedly.
The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant drove carelessly without exercising necessary prudence and attention, and without reasonably considering other road users.
The defendant was convicted.
The defendant was convicted of careless driving after aggressively passing a cyclist and causing a collision.
The defendant was charged with failing to obey a lane sign contrary to section 154(1)(c) of the Highway Traffic Act and careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act.
The charges arose from a collision between the defendant's Jeep (towing a trailer) and a cyclist on Lansdowne Avenue in Toronto.
The court dismissed the lane sign charge due to lack of evidence of clearly marked lanes or official signs.
However, the court found the defendant guilty of careless driving, finding that the defendant's aggressive driving behavior, including passing the cyclist on the right, making a sudden stop at a green light, and subsequently driving away while the cyclist was standing beside the vehicle, constituted a departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver.
The court rejected the defendant's credibility and found that the defendant's actions were motivated by road rage rather than legitimate safety concerns.
The defendant was convicted of three traffic offences but acquitted of distracted driving.
The defendant was charged with four offences: failing to stop at a red light, failing to comply with a police officer's direction, driving while holding a hand-held communication device, and failing to surrender an insurance card.
The court found the defendant guilty of three charges (red light, failing to comply with officer's direction, and failing to surrender insurance card) and not guilty of the hand-held communication device charge.
The court applied the three-category framework for offences from Sault Ste.
Marie, classifying the red light and insurance card charges as absolute liability offences and the remaining charges as strict liability offences.
