Kenneth W. Dechert, J.P.

The defendant was charged with disobeying a stop sign by failing to stop at the intersection of Leighland Avenue and Kent Avenue in Oakville on February 9, 2011.

The prosecution relied on the testimony of Police Officer Ross Amore, who observed the defendant's vehicle entering the intersection at approximately 15 kilometres per hour without stopping.

The defendant testified that he stopped properly at the stop sign, and his passenger corroborated this account.

The court found that while the officer's testimony was genuine, it lacked significant reliability due to equivocal responses regarding other vehicles at the intersection and a lack of detail regarding the defendant's vehicle's approach to the marked stop line.

The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant failed to stop at the marked stop line as required by the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant was acquitted.

The Crown charged Timur Leckebusch with two counts of unlawfully undertaking development without a permit in a Development Control area under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act: construction of an earthen berm and construction of a retaining wall.

The Crown also charged 819743 Ontario Inc. with unlawfully undertaking development without a permit for construction of an armour stone wall.

The defendants argued that the structures were exempt from the permit requirement as accessory structures to general agricultural development under Ontario Regulation 828.

The court found that the Crown proved the actus reus of all three offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court found that Leckebusch successfully established the exemption for both the berm and retaining wall on a balance of probabilities, resulting in acquittals on both counts.

The court found that 819743 Ontario Inc. failed to establish the exemption for the armour stone wall and was convicted.

The defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle on a highway while his driver's licence was suspended contrary to section 53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown proved the actus reus of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt: the defendant drove on May 14, 2011, while his licence was suspended effective April 14, 2008, for unpaid fines.

The defendant raised the due diligence defence, arguing he held an honest and reasonable but mistaken belief that his licence was not suspended.

The court found that although the defendant may have honestly believed his licence was valid, his belief was not objectively reasonable.

The defendant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the status of his licence despite knowing of the 2008 suspension, failing to pay the outstanding fine, and failing to notify the Ministry of Transportation of address changes.

The court found the defendant guilty.

The defendant was charged with failing to stop on the right for an emergency vehicle contrary to section 159(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown alleged that on October 12, 2009, the defendant failed to immediately stop her vehicle near the right-hand curb when a fire truck with siren sounding and emergency lights flashing approached from behind.

The defendant denied that the fire truck had approached her vehicle.

The court found that the offence is a strict liability regulatory offence and that the Crown proved the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt based on credible police officer testimony.

The defendant failed to establish the due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities, as her mistaken belief that the fire truck had not approached was not objectively reasonable given that she had initially observed the truck 500-1,000 metres behind her and should have taken immediate steps to move to the right lane.

The defendant was charged with speeding (111 km/h in a 70 km/h zone) under the Highway Traffic Act, prosecuted under Part I of the Provincial Offences Act.

The defendant brought an application under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated.

The trial commenced on November 17, 2010, but was adjourned due to lack of court time.

The trial was subsequently rescheduled multiple times, with the defendant explicitly waiving his Charter rights for one period.

The court found that 15 months and 16 days of the total 23 months and 20 days of delay was attributable to unacceptable institutional delay.

The court concluded that the defendant's right to a fair trial had been prejudiced and that a stay of proceedings was the appropriate remedy.

The defendant was charged with careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act.

The trial was delayed multiple times, primarily due to the unavailability of a court-appointed Punjabi interpreter, resulting in a total delay of over 26 months.

The defendant brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing his right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed.

The court applied the Morin framework, finding 16 months of institutional delay attributable to the Crown.

The court inferred prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair trial and granted a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter.