Andrew Smith

The applicant brought a motion to stay proceedings for driving while under suspension and failing to properly wear a seatbelt, alleging a breach of his section 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The Crown argued the matter should be assessed under the Morin framework, while the applicant relied on the newly released Jordan framework establishing an 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court cases.

The court found that although the total delay was 17 months and 1 day, the case became significantly more complex mid-proceedings when the Crown discovered the defendant had multiple driver's licences that had been merged by the Ministry of Transportation.

The court held that the time spent on judicial pre-trial conferences constituted inherent time requirements of the case and that the Crown had acted expeditiously throughout.

The motion to stay was dismissed.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision in two priority disputes regarding liability for statutory accident benefits (SABs).

In both cases, the appellant had issued motor vehicle liability policies that were later reduced to comprehensive coverage without the use of the prescribed OPCF 16 form, and subsequently renewed.

The arbitrator held that the failure to use the prescribed form meant the policies continued as motor vehicle liability policies with SABs coverage.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeals, affirming that an insurer can only eliminate SABs coverage by cancelling the existing policy and issuing a new non-liability policy, or by using the mandatory OPCF 16 form.

The appellant appealed his conviction for permitting a motor vehicle to be operated without insurance contrary to s. 2(1)(b) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

The Justice of the Peace convicted the appellant based on hearsay evidence regarding vehicle ownership and circumstantial evidence that the owner permitted the driver to use the vehicle.

The appellate court found that the Justice of the Peace erred in law by accepting proof of ownership that violated the best evidence rule and by drawing an unreasonable inference from circumstantial evidence.

The court allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal.

The appellant appealed her conviction on four provincial offences: failing to surrender an insurance card, proceeding contrary to an intersection sign, driving without a current plate validation, and driving while under suspension.

The trial justice found all charges proven beyond a reasonable doubt and imposed fines totalling $1,270.

The appellant raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the Crown failed to prove the location of the offences was in Toronto, an essential element; and second, that the trial justice provided excessive assistance to the prosecution, creating a reasonable perception of bias.

The appellate court dismissed both grounds, finding that the well-known intersection of Queen Street West and Bathurst could be judicially noticed, and that while the trial justice's interventions were unfortunate, they did not compromise the overall fairness of the trial when assessed in their totality.

The Crown appealed a Justice of the Peace's decision dismissing a charge against the respondent for permitting a motor vehicle to be operated without insurance under s. 2(1)(b) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

The Crown argued the Justice of the Peace failed to consider circumstantial evidence.

The appeal judge held that the offence is one of strict liability, not requiring proof of mens rea.

However, even considering the circumstantial evidence, the evidence was insufficient to prove the respondent permitted the vehicle to be driven.

The appeal was dismissed.