Faisal Joseph

The defendant sought to strike a guilty plea to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant had appeared unrepresented at a judicial pre-trial and entered a guilty plea without legal advice.

Subsequently, upon retaining counsel, the defendant moved to strike the plea.

The court found the plea was voluntary and unequivocal but determined it was not fully informed due to the complexity of the charge, the extensive disclosure (87 pages), the defendant's limited education (grade 10), and the absence of legal representation.

The court struck the guilty plea and ordered the matter to proceed to trial.

The applicant, injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought income replacement benefits and requested that the insurer disclose whether it had conducted surveillance and, if so, produce it 90 days before the hearing.

The insurer refused to disclose whether surveillance existed and offered to produce any relied-upon surveillance 60 days prior.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to promptly disclose whether surveillance had been conducted and, if it intended to rely on any surveillance, to produce it 90 days before the hearing to allow the applicant sufficient time to respond with medical evidence without incurring undue financial burden under the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer argued that the applicant was precluded from coverage under section 1.8.4 of the Ontario Automobile Policy (OAP 1), which excludes coverage for persons who sell or repair automobiles as part of a business while involved in conducting that business.

The applicant and his brother had leased dealer plates to buy and sell cars for profit, but had only sold one car prior to the accident.

The arbitrator found that the enterprise was not sufficiently developed to be considered a business at the time of the accident.

Furthermore, even if it were a business, the insurer failed to prove that the applicant was involved in conducting that business when the accident occurred.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant was not precluded from coverage.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The Insurer denied non-earner benefits, arguing the Applicant was precluded under section 30(1)(a) of the Schedule because he knew or ought reasonably to have known he was operating an uninsured vehicle.

Following a preliminary issue hearing, the Arbitrator ruled that the Applicant was not precluded from receiving non-earner benefits under the exclusion and ordered the matter to proceed to a hearing on the substantive issues.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the police failed to provide him with a reasonable opportunity to exercise his right to counsel of choice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the summary conviction appeal judge that the trial judge's reasons were exemplary and her finding was fully supported by the evidence.