Julie Vu

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class A driver's licence for 90 days under s. 47(1)(g) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Registrar argued the suspension was justified for public safety reasons, relying on an ongoing police investigation into a bribery scheme involving driving examiners.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the appellant's specific road test was compromised by dishonesty.

The evidence presented consisted of conclusory statements without sufficient factual basis to prove the appellant participated in the scheme.

The appeal was allowed and the licence suspension was set aside.

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.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of its trailer under the Highway Traffic Act.

The trailer was impounded after an inspection revealed it had no brakes due to a detached air coupling ('glad hand').

The Registrar brought a preliminary motion challenging the applicant's standing, which the Tribunal dismissed, finding the applicant was an owner under the Act.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the detached glad hand was a sudden emergency that the driver was addressing safely, rather than a sign of poor long-term maintenance.

The Tribunal concluded that the regulatory scheme was not meant to punish safe operators addressing emergencies and ordered the release of the vehicle.