L. Clayton

The defendant was convicted on 56 counts of unlawfully removing, injuring, or destroying heritage trees without a permit contrary to the Town of Ancaster Bylaw 2000-118.

The defendant removed 56 heritage trees from the property at 558 Golf Links Road in Hamilton over a period of several days in July and August 2014.

The court imposed a sentence of $6,000 per count for a total fine of $336,000 and a two-year probation order with standard statutory terms and conditions.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the conviction should be stayed and that the Keinapple rule against multiple convictions should apply to reduce the sentence to a maximum of $10,000.

The defendant was charged with fifty-six counts of unlawfully removing, injuring, or destroying Heritage trees without a permit under the Town of Ancaster By-Law No. 2000-118.

The charges arose from tree cuttings on the Golf Links property in Hamilton between July 20 and August 10, 2014.

The defendant brought a motion for a directed verdict and a Charter delay challenge, both of which were denied.

The court found that the prosecution established a prima facie case and that the matter proceeded well within the eighteen-month threshold established by R. v. Jordan for Provincial Offences Act matters.

Following a trial on the merits, the court found the defendant guilty on all fifty-six counts.

The court rejected the defendant's defenses of mistake of fact, due diligence, and officially induced error, finding that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to determine whether a permit was required before cutting the trees.

The appellant appealed her conviction for driving with a hand-held communication device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The facts were undisputed: the appellant was observed operating her vehicle with a cell phone positioned between her right ear and shoulder, with both hands on the steering wheel.

The appellant argued she was not "holding" the device and alternatively that her conduct was saved by the hands-free mode exception.

The court rejected both arguments, finding that "holding" includes positioning the device between the ear and shoulder, and that hands-free mode contemplates manufacturer-designed adaptations, not merely using the device without hands.

The appeal was dismissed.