James Ziegler

The defendant brought a Charter motion under s. 11(b) for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay in a provincial offence matter.

The court found a total delay of 23.75 months from the offence date to the first trial date, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling set by R. v. Jordan.

While acknowledging the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the court also identified significant systemic delay caused by a shortage of judicial resources, particularly since August 2022.

The court concluded that the delay was unacceptable and breached the defendant's Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time, granting a stay of proceedings.

The Crown sought an order under s. 490(1) of the Criminal Code for the continued detention of clothing and a wallet chain seized from the accused, who was charged with sexual assault and touching for a sexual purpose.

This was a second request for detention, the first having been denied.

The Justice of the Peace reviewed the officer's report and the relevant case law on s. 490, which limits the function to determining if detention is required for investigation or legal proceedings.

Despite additional narrative from the officer, the report did not expressly state that the items were required for trial or "other proceeding." Consequently, the Justice of the Peace ordered the return of the seized items.

The Municipality of Brockton charged Phillip M. Englishman with trespass under the Trespass to Property Act for entering the Saugeen Municipal Airport's taxiway and runway.

Englishman, a long-standing pilot with an access agreement, had been warned about outstanding issues.

The court addressed three main issues: federal vs. provincial jurisdiction over airport operations, whether Englishman breached his access agreement, and if he could establish a defence of colour of right.

The court found that jurisdiction over airport runways and taxiways is exclusively federal, thus quashing the provincial trespass charge.

Additionally, it found that Englishman had reasonably complied with the terms of his access agreement and therefore had a valid colour of right defence.

The defendant was charged with two offences under the Regional Municipality of Waterloo By-Law 16-023 (as amended by By-Law 18-023): offering tow truck services within 200 metres of an accident scene and positioning a tow truck within 200 metres of an accident scene.

The defendant challenged the validity of the amended by-law as inconsistent with the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found that the amended by-law conflicted with section 177(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, which provides an exception for towing services in emergencies.

The court determined that an accident constitutes an emergency and that the by-law's complete prohibition on tow truck presence within 200 metres of an accident scene eliminated the provincial emergency exception.

The court found the amended by-law invalid and dismissed both charges.

The accused was charged with permitting the operation of a motor vehicle without automobile insurance, contrary to section 2(1)(b) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

The Crown alleged that the accused, as the registered owner, permitted his daughter to operate the vehicle on May 7, 2019, when the insurance policy had been cancelled in October 2018.

The accused testified that he had transferred the vehicle to his daughter approximately one year prior, surrendering all possession and control to her.

The daughter testified that she had sole access to the vehicle, held the only keys, and was responsible for it, but could not afford to transfer it into her name.

The court found that the accused had completely surrendered possession and control of the vehicle to his daughter and therefore did not permit its operation.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with operating a slow moving vehicle over 40 kilometres per hour contrary to Section 76(6.1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant was observed driving a pickup truck at 100 kilometres per hour while towing an implement of husbandry without a slow moving vehicle sign.

The defendant argued that the statutory language required a slow moving vehicle sign to be attached for the speed restriction to apply.

The court rejected this interpretation, finding that the legislation creates two types of offences: one for vehicles with a slow moving sign and one for vehicles towing an implement of husbandry regardless of signage.

The court convicted the defendant and imposed a fine of $85 plus costs and surcharge.

The defendant was charged with obstructing a license plate in violation of Section 13 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The charge alleged that a plate cover obstructed the words "Yours to Discover" on the defendant's license plate.

The court found that while the plate cover did obscure the provincial motto, the numbers and validation sticker remained clearly visible and capable of being photographed by photo-radar and red-light camera systems.

The court took judicial notice that plate covers obscuring "Yours to Discover" are prevalent throughout Ontario and noted the absence of any enforcement initiatives or case law supporting prosecution for this type of obstruction.

The court concluded that the purpose of Section 13 was to ensure visibility of the plate numbers and validation sticker for identification and enforcement purposes, not to protect the provincial motto.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant, a horse farm operator, was charged with four counts under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act: causing animals to be in distress, failing to comply with prescribed standards of care, failing to comply with an OSPCA order, and failing to provide care necessary for the general welfare of horses.

The defendant operated a facility with approximately 43 horses, many of which were rescue animals over 20 years old.

Following a loss of volunteer assistance and poor hay quality in 2012, conditions deteriorated significantly.

OSPCA inspections in February and March 2013 revealed inadequate feed, water, bedding, and grooming.

The court found the defendant guilty on all four counts, determining that while she possessed knowledge of proper horse care, she lacked sufficient financial resources and assistance to maintain adequate care for the large herd and failed to reduce the herd size when circumstances changed.

The defendant brought a Charter application under section 24(1) seeking a stay of proceedings for an alleged violation of section 11(b) rights regarding delay in trial.

The defendant was charged with speeding on August 31, 2013, and the trial was scheduled for September 19, 2014.

The court found that the defendant had acquiesced to the adjournment when her counsel agreed to the rescheduled trial date without raising concerns about the length of delay.

Alternatively, the court found that the Crown delay attributable to the case was approximately 6.8 months, which did not meet the threshold established in jurisprudence for granting a stay.

The court also found minimal prejudice to the defendant given the nature of the quasi-criminal charge and the type of evidence involved.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with obstructing a license plate contrary to section 13(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The evidence showed that the defendant's license plate had faded blue paint, making the numbers difficult to read from a distance.

The Justice of the Peace found that while faded plates should be replaced, the statutory language of section 13(2) contemplates active obstruction by the defendant, not passive deterioration through normal wear and tear.

The court dismissed the charge, finding no evidence of deliberate obstruction.

The court noted that had it been wrong on the law, it would have suspended the sentence given the defendant's financial situation and the fact that he replaced the plates immediately upon being informed of the issue.

The defendant, Theda Cook, was charged with two offences under the Dog Owners' Liability Act: failing to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent her dog from biting a person, and failing to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent her dog from attacking a person.

The incident occurred on October 15, 2012, when the defendant's dog attacked a neighbour who came to the door to request that a vehicle be moved from the shared driveway.

The victim sustained multiple bite marks and bruising through her winter clothing.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts and ordered the dog to be euthanized, based on the dog's history of aggression, prior biting incidents, and the defendant's failure to implement adequate preventative measures despite knowledge of the dog's dangerous temperament.

The defendant was charged with stunt driving (speeding 65 km/h over the posted limit) and failing to produce a driver's license.

The defendant brought a Charter application under section 11(b) for a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay.

The court found that the Crown's failure to provide timely disclosure and the failure to secure a Mandarin interpreter for scheduled trial dates constituted Crown and institutional delay totaling approximately 11 months of the 14-month delay.

The court granted a stay of proceedings.

However, the court proceeded to hear the trial on the merits and found the defendant guilty on both counts, imposing a reduced fine of $600 plus costs and surcharge on the stunt driving charge, and suspending sentence on the license production charge.

The complainant sought a peace bond against the respondents alleging threats and property damage.

The court found that while the respondents engaged in inconsiderate conduct, including bulldozing and spray painting the lawn of the matrimonial home, such actions did not constitute grounds for a peace bond.

The court determined that the complainant failed to establish reasonable grounds for fear of personal injury or property damage on the balance of probabilities.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant, Linamar Holdings Inc. operating as Transgear Manufacturing, was sentenced following a guilty plea and joint submission for a serious workplace injury to an employee.

The court imposed a fine of $150,000.00 plus costs and surcharge, payable within 90 days.

The sentencing considered the defendant's prior convictions at neighbouring facilities (one fatality and one critical injury), the immediate corrective actions taken by the defendant following the incident, and ongoing safety improvements implemented to address workplace hazards related to lockout and troubleshooting procedures on hazardous machinery.

The Ontario Ministry of Labour prosecuted Linamar Holdings Inc. (operating as Transgear Manufacturing) on three counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace accident on May 20, 2009, in which a certified millwright, Amelio Aramini, was electrocuted while troubleshooting a leak in an induction hardening machine (KVA 003).

Count 1 alleged failure to ensure prescribed measures under Ontario Regulation 851, section 41 regarding signage in rooms or similar enclosures containing exposed live electrical parts.

Count 2 alleged failure to provide information, instruction, and supervision regarding safe troubleshooting procedures and electrical hazards.

Count 3 alleged failure to acquaint the worker with electrical hazards.

The court found the defendant guilty on Count 2 only, dismissing Counts 1 and 3.

The decision emphasizes that troubleshooting is an exception to lockout procedures, that the defendant failed to provide adequate machine-specific guidance for troubleshooting, and that the unmarked electrical bus bars resembling water pipes contributed to the accident.