3 total
The defendant was convicted of careless driving after rear-ending a stopped vehicle.
The defendant was charged with careless driving following a three-vehicle collision on January 26, 2019, on Stevenson Road South in Oshawa.
The defendant's vehicle struck another vehicle from behind, causing a chain-reaction collision.
The defendant claimed brake failure and black ice conditions, but the court found the road was dry and the vehicle had no mechanical defects.
The court found the defendant was either traveling too fast or braked too late, or both, and rejected her due diligence defence.
The defendant was convicted of careless driving.
The accused was convicted of speeding based on reliable police radar evidence over his uncorroborated testimony.
The accused was charged with speeding 107 kilometres per hour in a 70 kilometre per hour zone contrary to section 128 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.
A Durham Regional Police Officer testified that he observed the accused's vehicle traveling at excessive speed and confirmed the speed using a Genesis II radar device.
The accused testified that he was traveling at 70 kilometres per hour, having seen the speed limit sign and attempting to keep up with traffic flow.
The court applied the R. v. W.(D.) test and found the officer's evidence more reliable, as it was based on both visual observations and a properly calibrated and operated radar device, compared to the accused's reliance on seeing a speed limit sign and keeping pace with surrounding traffic.
The accused was found guilty.
The court dismissed a speeding conviction appeal, finding sufficient evidence of the radar device's reliability.
The appellant appealed her conviction for speeding contrary to section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.
The central issue was whether the Crown established sufficient evidence regarding the testing and reliability of the radar device used to measure the appellant's speed.
The appellant also challenged the officer's qualifications, the proof of the posted speed limit, and the trial justice's limitation of cross-examination.
The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the evidence was sufficient to establish the device's reliability, the officer's qualifications, and the posted speed limit.
The limitation on cross-examination did not significantly impact the trial.
