4 total
The accused was convicted of stunt racing after the court accepted Lidar evidence of his speed and rejected his due diligence defence.
The accused was charged with stunt racing contrary to s. 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act for driving at 161 km/h in a 100 km/h zone on Highway 401, exceeding the speed limit by 61 km/h.
The Crown relied on Lidar speed detection evidence from a trained officer.
The defence challenged the accuracy of the Lidar reading and suggested the officer's vehicle was moving when the reading was taken.
The court found stunt racing to be a strict liability offence with a due diligence defence available.
The Crown proved the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused failed to establish the due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities.
The accused was convicted.
The court largely lifted a publication ban on an unsealed search warrant ITO but maintained restrictions on the accused's criminal antecedents.
Media organizations applied under section 487.3(4) of the Criminal Code to unseal and publish portions of an Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant in Project Traveller proceedings.
The court had previously ordered the unsealing of a heavily redacted version with a publication ban.
The accused sought to maintain restrictions on publication regarding: (1) evidence adduced at bail hearings, (2) criminal antecedents, and (3) references to a prior search warrant.
The court declined to rule on bail hearing evidence, continued the publication ban on criminal antecedents, and lifted the ban on prior warrant references except for the name of the individual searched.
The court ordered the unsealing of redacted search warrant materials subject to a temporary publication ban, prioritizing the Crown's disclosure obligations to the accused over immediate media access.
Media organizations sought to unseal search warrant Information to Obtain (ITO) documents and related judicial authorizations from Project Traveller, a major criminal investigation.
The Crown sought to maintain certain redactions based on investigative technique privilege and wiretap disclosure restrictions under s. 193 of the Criminal Code.
The court ordered the unsealing of the May 31, 2013 ITO in its current redacted form with a temporary publication ban pending further submissions from counsel for the accused.
The court also ordered the Crown to provide redacted copies of remaining Project Traveller ITOs within 30 days of completing Stinchcombe disclosure to the accused, with a detailed chart explaining redactions.
The court rejected the Crown's six-month delay to redact search warrants, ordering faster disclosure.
Media organizations sought an order to terminate or vary a sealing order issued by Justice Marin on May 31, 2013, which sealed documents relating to search warrants executed by the Toronto Police Service between May 31 and June 14, 2013.
The Crown sought a six-month adjournment to vet the Information to Obtain (ITO) before disclosure.
The court found the Crown's proposed timeline unreasonable and contrary to the open court principle protected by the Charter.
The court ordered the Crown to provide a redacted version of the May 31 ITO on a counsel-only basis by August 27, 2013, with a return hearing scheduled for no later than September 12, 2013.
