Julie Vu

The prosecution brought an application invoking the rule in Browne v. Dunn, alleging that the defendant breached the rule by introducing evidence of a vehicle identification number label/sticker during his testimony without first putting this evidence to the prosecution witness, Officer Brown, during cross-examination.

The defendant was unrepresented at the time he began giving evidence.

The court found that while the defendant's conduct may not have constituted a deliberate ambush, the rule had been met and the appropriate remedy was to permit the officer to be recalled for re-examination on the evidence adduced by the defendant regarding the label/sticker.

The defendant, a commercial motor vehicle driver, was charged with failing to properly secure an intermodal container load on his trailer in violation of Ontario Regulation 363/04 and the National Safety Code Standard 10.

A Ministry of Transportation officer observed two locking pins on the right side of the trailer in what appeared to be an unlocked position during a Level 2 inspection.

The defendant testified that he had conducted a thorough pre-trip inspection and found all four locking mechanisms properly secured.

The court found both witnesses credible and, applying the test from R. v. W.D., determined that the defendant's evidence raised a reasonable doubt regarding whether the locks were actually unlocked.

The charge was dismissed.