A. Debly

The appellants, a motor vehicle dealer and its business manager, appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration and an Immediate Temporary Suspension Order (ITSO) issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Tribunal held a hearing to determine whether the ITSO should be extended pending the conclusion of the appeal.

The Registrar presented evidence of the appellants' failure to pay out a lien, failure to honour a consignment agreement, failure to comply with requests for information, and multiple significant violations found during inspections.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar established a reasonable basis for the allegations and that it was in the public interest to extend the ITSO until the conclusion of the hearing.

The defendant was charged with stunt driving under Section 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act for driving 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit on EC Row Expressway in Windsor.

The Crown's case relied on radar evidence showing a speed reading of 150 km/h in a 100 km/h zone.

The court found the defendant not guilty because the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was travelling at 150 km/h.

While the court was satisfied the defendant was travelling at 140 km/h (40 km/h over the limit), the stunt driving charge requires proof of at least 50 km/h over the limit.

A commercial trucking company was charged with transporting dangerous goods (wet-filled acid batteries) without displaying required safety placards and labels in violation of the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act.

The defendant argued that an exemption under 49 CFR 173.159(e) applied because the shipment originated from the United States.

The court rejected this argument, finding that 173.159(e) pertains only to packaging and bracing requirements, not placarding and safety marking requirements.

The court held that the exemption under section 9.1 of the Canadian Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 only applies when United States placarding and marking requirements are met, which they were not.

The defendant was convicted.