Lauren Boyd

The appellant, Andrew McNally, appealed his conviction for driving with a handheld communication device under the Highway Traffic Act.

He argued the trial Justice of the Peace misapplied the burden of proof or reached an unreasonable verdict.

The appeal court found that the trial judge failed to adequately address the exemption under s. 14(1) of Regulation 366/09, which places the burden on the defendant to prove the exemption on a balance of probabilities.

As the trial judge's reasons did not clearly indicate whether this exemption was considered or how the conflicting evidence regarding the purpose of touching the device (GPS vs. answering a call) was weighed, the finding of guilt could not be upheld.

A new trial was ordered.

The Crown appealed a conviction entered against the respondent for failing to signal a lane change under the Highway Traffic Act.

The respondent appeared twice requesting adjournments but failed to appear when the trial was called.

The Justice of the Peace entered a conviction pursuant to section 9.1(2) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The Crown argued the Justice of the Peace erred in law.

The appellate court upheld the conviction, finding that section 9.1(1) applied when the respondent failed to appear at the time and place appointed for trial, and that the respondent's conduct demonstrated he wished to defer the outcome rather than have his day in court.