3 total
Provincial motor vehicle laws of general application apply to Indigenous persons driving on public highways.
An appeal from a conviction under provincial motor vehicle legislation.
The appellant, claiming Aboriginal status, argued that the Province of Ontario has no jurisdiction over Indigenous persons and therefore provincial laws do not apply to them.
The appellant was convicted of multiple offences under the Highway Traffic Act and Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that provincial laws of general application apply to all persons within the province, including Indigenous persons, and that driving a motor vehicle on a public highway does not constitute an Aboriginal right protected under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The court dismissed the appeal of driving under suspension convictions, finding no procedural defects and rejecting the officially induced error defence.
The appellant appealed convictions for drive under suspension and drive with a licence issued in another jurisdiction while under suspension in Ontario.
The appellant raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the originating process was defective or that there was no power to amend the tickets; and second, that the verdict was unreasonable.
The court dismissed both grounds, finding that the appellant had been properly arraigned on a Part III information after attorning to jurisdiction, and that the Justice of the Peace's findings were reasonable based on the evidence.
The appellant had been previously convicted of impaired driving, failed to pay the fine, and subsequently drove while suspended, claiming he had been misled by a Ministry of Transportation counter clerk.
The rear storage compartment of an SUV constitutes a trunk for the purposes of the stunt driving offence.
The appellant was convicted of stunt driving under the Highway Traffic Act for transporting a person in the rear storage area of a 1997 RAV 4 SUV without a seatbelt.
The appellant appealed, arguing that the storage compartment of an SUV does not constitute a "trunk" as defined in Regulation 455, and that strict construction principles should apply in favour of the defendant.
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the storage compartment of an SUV falls within the definition of "trunk" under the regulation, as it is not designed for human occupancy and lacks proper seating and structural protections.