L.M. Scully

The defendant brought a Charter application under sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenging a traffic stop and the issuance of a ticket for driving without a valid license.

The defendant alleged that the stop constituted an arbitrary detention based on racial profiling.

The court found that the officer had articulable cause to stop the defendant's vehicle based on specific information that the defendant was an unlicensed driver, information that was only two weeks old at the time of the stop.

The court rejected the racial profiling allegation, finding that the circumstances did not support an inference of racial profiling and that the stop was lawful under provincial legislation.

The defendant was charged with nine counts of wilfully collecting and using personal health information without authority under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004.

The defendant brought Charter applications under section 11(b) for unreasonable delay and under section 7 for abuse of process and selective prosecution.

The court found a violation of section 11(b) due to Crown delay of 16 months and 10 days, which exceeded the Morin guidelines by 6 months and 10 days.

The court found actual and inferred prejudice to the defendant.

The court rejected the section 7 application, finding no abuse of process.

A stay of proceedings was granted pursuant to section 11(b) and section 24(1) of the Charter.

The defendant was charged with unlawfully hunting big game (moose) without a licence contrary to section 6(1)(a) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.

The defendant admitted to shooting a cow moose without a licence but claimed he had constitutional rights to hunt as a Métis person under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and that his section 15 Charter rights to equality had been violated.

The court found that the defendant failed to establish the existence of a historic Métis community in the area where he was hunting as of the time of effective European control (1850), and that his ancestors did not arrive in the region until after that date.

The court also found that the defendant's section 15 claim was directed at the Métis Nation of Ontario, which was not a party to the proceedings.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act following a motor vehicle collision that occurred on November 26, 2010, during a severe snowstorm.

The prosecution called three witnesses including the driver of the other vehicle, an independent witness, and the investigating officer.

The defence called the defendant and a passenger.

The court found that while the defendant's vehicle slid out of control on ice and collided with another vehicle, the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was driving carelessly.

The defendant was driving 70-80 km/h in a 90 km/h zone, below the speed limit due to poor weather conditions.

The court found that the icy road conditions, rather than the defendant's driving, were the primary cause of the accident.

The defendant's inexperience in bad weather and panic-induced overcorrection did not constitute behaviour deserving of punishment.

The court also rejected the prosecution's argument that lesser included offences of "Change Lane Not in Safety" and "Fail to Drive in Marked Lane" could be applied, finding these were not necessarily included in the careless driving charge.

The defendant, owner of a multi-unit residential building, was charged with five violations of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 relating to the Fire Code.

The charges involved: combustible materials stored in a means of egress; obstruction of a means of egress with items on stairs; obstruction of an exterior stairway; failure to maintain an exterior stairway in good repair; and a breach of fire separation requirements between dwelling units.

The defendant raised defenses of temporary storage and necessity, which were rejected.

The court found the defendant guilty on all five counts based on clear photographic evidence and testimony from the Fire Prevention Officer.