Jodi Burness

The defendant was convicted of stunt driving under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown sought imprisonment of 30 days and a 30-day licence suspension, or alternatively a fine of $8,000-$10,000 with a 6-month suspension.

The defence sought the minimum fine of $2,000.

The court imposed a fine of $2,500 with 240 days to pay and no licence suspension, considering the defendant's personal circumstances, the absence of actual harm, the novelty of the conviction, and the essential role of truck drivers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant was charged with driving a commercial motor vehicle on Highway 401 without due care and attention by driving in a manner indicating an intention to drive as close as possible to another vehicle, contrary to section 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and Ontario Regulation 455/07.

The Crown presented evidence from three police officers, including aerial surveillance footage showing the defendant's tractor-trailer following another commercial vehicle at dangerously close distances (as little as 3 metres) over approximately 5 kilometres while traveling at 102 km/hr.

The defendant challenged the identity of the driver and argued the Crown failed to prove the requisite intent and that the distance was not "as close as possible." The court found the defendant guilty, holding that the manner of driving indicated the requisite intention and that the Crown had proven all elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

Appeal of convictions and sentences for violations of the Highway Traffic Act arising from a wheel detachment incident on October 10, 2013.

Inter County Concrete Products Limited was charged under section 84.1(1) for permitting operation of a commercial motor vehicle from which a wheel became detached.

Pedrag Petkovic was charged under section 84(1) for driving a vehicle in a dangerous or unsafe condition.

The trial justice convicted both appellants and imposed substantial fines.

The appellants appealed both convictions and sentences, raising issues regarding the sufficiency of the information, the characterization of the offence, and the appropriateness of the sentences imposed.

The appellant was convicted of failing to properly wear a seatbelt contrary to section 106(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

A police officer testified that he observed the appellant driving a tractor-trailer without a fastened seatbelt on Highway 401.

The appellant testified that he was wearing his seatbelt and that the colour of his shirt may have created a visual illusion.

On appeal, the court found that the trial justice erred by permitting cross-examination on statements made to the police officer without a voir dire on voluntariness, and by allowing improper cross-examination suggesting the appellant had tailored his evidence based on disclosure.

The appeal was granted and a new trial was ordered.

An appeal of a conviction under sections 107(11) and 207(1) of the Highway Traffic Act for operating a commercial motor vehicle with major defects.

The central issue was whether the corporate defendant was properly identified as "Trans-West Logistics Inc." when the vehicle registration documents identified the owner as "Logistiques Trans-West Inc." The appellant argued that the exact legal name must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that prior case law on corporate identity should have been binding.

The appellate court found that the prior cases involved materially different facts and that stare decisis did not apply.

The court determined that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the two names referred to the same corporate entity and that the name constituted a misnomer rather than a substitution of a different entity.

The conviction was upheld with the corporate name amended to reflect the registration documents.

The defendant was charged with speeding 104 km/h in a posted 90 kph zone contrary to s. 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The incident occurred on March 7, 2013.

The defendant brought an application under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a stay of proceedings due to a violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Crown took no position on the application.

The court found that the total delay of 12 months and 14 days from the date of the offence to the trial date was unreasonable, consisting of an excessive 6-month intake period to schedule the trial and a further 5-month delay from the Notice of Trial to the actual trial date.

The court determined that a reasonable neutral intake period for a Part 1 proceeding should be 30 to 45 days.

The defendant also demonstrated actual prejudice due to the delay.

The application was granted and a stay of proceedings was ordered.