Lauren Boyd

The defendant, Michael Dejong, faced a charge under the Highway Traffic Act for a red light camera offence.

He brought a constitutional application alleging a violation of his section 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court found a net delay of 22 months and 23 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling set by R. v. Jordan for Part I Provincial Offences.

The prosecution failed to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness or establish exceptional circumstances.

The court also rejected the prosecution's arguments that Charter rights do not apply to owner liability offences or that red light camera charges do not carry true penal consequences.

Consequently, the application was granted, and a stay of proceedings was entered.

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.

The applicant brought a s. 8 Charter application seeking to exclude 141 grams of cocaine seized during a warranted search of his residence and vehicle.

He argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient grounds as it relied on unproven confidential informants and omitted their criminal records.

The court found the tips from three known informants were compelling, credible, and corroborated by police investigation.

The omission of the informants' criminal records was not material as they did not contain crimes of dishonesty.

The court concluded the warrant was properly issued and there was no s. 8 breach.

Alternatively, the court held the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The application was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to eleven counts of double doctoring and one count of fraud under $5000 after obtaining over 224 prescriptions for narcotics, primarily fentanyl, from 45 doctors over 34 months.

The offender, who became addicted to fentanyl following back surgeries, failed to disclose previous prescriptions to the prescribing physicians and defrauded the Ontario Drug Benefit Program.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, imposing a global sentence of 22 months in jail, less 12 months credit for strict bail conditions and pre-sentence custody, followed by 18 months of probation.