Lorinda Angus

The appellant appealed a conviction entered ex parte under section 9.1 of the Provincial Offences Act for failing to move into another lane for an emergency vehicle.

The Certificate of Offence cited an incorrect and repealed section of the Highway Traffic Act (section 159.1(2)) rather than the valid provision (section 159(3)).

The respondent conceded that the Certificate was not regular on its face due to the improper section citation.

The court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, finding that the discrepancy between the section number and the description of the offence created ambiguity that rendered the Certificate incomplete and irregular for purposes of an ex parte conviction.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving while using a hand-held communication device contrary to section 78.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal was based on ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically that the paralegal agent conducted the trial in the appellant's absence despite him being present in the building, thereby depriving him of his right to be present at trial.

The court found that the agent's conduct constituted a miscarriage of justice and ordered a new trial before a different Justice of the Peace.

The appellant appealed his conviction for speeding contrary to section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown alleged the appellant was travelling at 153 km/h in a 100 km/h zone on Highway 407, as measured by a Laser Atlanta speed detection device.

The appellant claimed he was travelling at 100 km/h and that his company vehicle was equipped with a speed limiter preventing speeds above 120 km/h.

The trial justice accepted the investigating officer's evidence and rejected the appellant's testimony.

On appeal, the court dismissed three grounds of appeal: alleged interference with full answer and defence regarding cross-examination of the speed measuring device; alleged bias arising from the justice's reference to amending the charge upward; and alleged misapplication of the R. v. W.(D.) credibility analysis.

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

The appellant appealed his conviction for speeding contrary to section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant was charged with operating a motor vehicle at 149 km/h in a 100 km/h zone on Highway 407.

During trial, the Justice of the Peace amended the charge to reflect 153 km/h based on evidence presented.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: alleged interference by the trier of fact preventing full answer and defence, bias arising from the amendment of the speed charge, and misapplication of the R. v. W.(D.) credibility assessment principles.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no reversible error occurred at trial.