Jane Moffatt

The defendant, George Valtoudis, was charged with obstructing an inspector from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), a strict liability offence under the Food Safety and Quality Act, 2001.

The court found that the prosecution proved the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant raised the affirmative defences of due diligence and reasonable mistake of fact, claiming he did not know the person was an OMAFRA inspector.

The court rejected these defences, finding that the defendant knew or ought to have known the inspector's identity and was not duly diligent.

Consequently, the defendant was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with speeding under the Provincial Offences Act after a collision resulted in a pedestrian's death.

The trial focused on the reliability of expert accident reconstruction evidence (Searle method) to determine speed, the necessity of corroborating such evidence, and whether the specific alleged speed (76km/hr) needed to be proven.

The court found the expert evidence reliable without corroboration and determined that the specific speed was not an essential element of the offence, serving as surplusage.

The defendant was found guilty of speeding at 75km/hr in a 60km/hr zone.

The Crown sought to adduce expert opinion evidence from a police accident reconstructionist regarding the speed of the defendant's vehicle at the time of impact with a pedestrian in a speeding charge.

The defence challenged admissibility on the grounds that the Searle method of speed calculation constitutes novel scientific evidence requiring special scrutiny, and alternatively, that the method was being used for a novel purpose.

The defence also argued that the cost-benefit analysis favoured exclusion.

The court admitted the evidence, finding that accident reconstruction methodologies are mathematical rather than scientific techniques, that the Searle method is not novel science, and that the probative value of the evidence outweighs any potential harm to the trial process.

A voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of two statements given by the defendant to police following a motor vehicle collision that resulted in a pedestrian fatality.

The defendant was charged with speeding contrary to the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant conceded the roadside statement was voluntary under the traditional test but argued his Charter s.7 rights were breached because the statement was compelled by statute.

The court held that liberty interests under s.7 are not engaged for an absolute liability speeding offence, as the only penalty is a fixed fine with no risk of incarceration.

The roadside statement was therefore admissible.

The prosecution withdrew its request to adduce the video statement, rendering its admissibility moot.