Jack Sturch

The defendant was charged with failing to yield to a pedestrian contrary to section 140(1)(a) of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.

The collision occurred at the intersection of Kingston Road and Brock Road in Pickering, where the defendant struck a pedestrian in a channelized right-turn lane.

The central issue was whether the collision location constituted a "pedestrian crossover" as defined by the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found conflicting evidence regarding the presence of white painted pedestrian crossing lines at the location.

Applying the R. v. W.(D.) test for credibility, the court found the pedestrian and civilian witness more credible than the investigating officer and defendant.

The court determined the location was an "uncontrolled crosswalk" rather than a "pedestrian crossover" and found the defendant not guilty of the charged offence but guilty of the included offence of failing to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk contrary to section 144(7) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant appealed her convictions for two offences under the Highway Traffic Act: failing to surrender her insurance card and careless driving.

The parties agreed the insurance card conviction appeal should be dismissed.

The appellant argued the careless driving conviction should be quashed because the certificate of offence contained an incorrect total payable amount ($485 instead of $490), rendering it incomplete and irregular on its face.

The court dismissed the appeal, distinguishing between errors in the set fine (which require quashing) and errors in the total payable amount (which do not).

The court held that while the set fine must be accurate to provide effective notice to the defendant, the total payable amount—which includes costs and victim fine surcharge—is not expressly required by statute and errors therein can be corrected by the justice of the peace upon conviction.