L. Phillipps

Vinventory Canada Inc. brought an application challenging the constitutional applicability of Ontario's Occupational Health and Safety Act, arguing that it was subject to federal derivative labour jurisdiction under the Canada Labour Code.

The corporation, a sub-contractor providing rail yard management and automobile handling services at a Canadian Pacific Railway facility, contended its operations were an integral part of a federally regulated undertaking.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Vinventory's work was not sufficiently integral or permanently dependent on the federal undertaking to displace the presumptive provincial labour jurisdiction.

The defendant was convicted of stunt driving under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown sought imprisonment of 30 days and a 30-day licence suspension, or alternatively a fine of $8,000-$10,000 with a 6-month suspension.

The defence sought the minimum fine of $2,000.

The court imposed a fine of $2,500 with 240 days to pay and no licence suspension, considering the defendant's personal circumstances, the absence of actual harm, the novelty of the conviction, and the essential role of truck drivers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant was charged with driving a commercial motor vehicle on Highway 401 without due care and attention by driving in a manner indicating an intention to drive as close as possible to another vehicle, contrary to section 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and Ontario Regulation 455/07.

The Crown presented evidence from three police officers, including aerial surveillance footage showing the defendant's tractor-trailer following another commercial vehicle at dangerously close distances (as little as 3 metres) over approximately 5 kilometres while traveling at 102 km/hr.

The defendant challenged the identity of the driver and argued the Crown failed to prove the requisite intent and that the distance was not "as close as possible." The court found the defendant guilty, holding that the manner of driving indicated the requisite intention and that the Crown had proven all elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

A corporate defendant charged with animal cruelty offences brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on alleged abuse of process due to the Crown's refusal to provide first-party disclosure.

The defendant sought investigative files and internal correspondence from the OSPCA relating to the key witness and the investigation.

The court held that while the defendant, as a corporation, could not invoke section 7 of the Charter, it retained jurisdiction to address disclosure obligations under common law and the Provincial Offence Act.

The court distinguished between first-party disclosure (fruits of the investigation and obviously relevant material) and third-party disclosure, finding that most of the requested materials fell outside the Crown's disclosure obligations.

The court declined to grant a stay of proceedings but ordered the OSPCA to disclose investigative files and agent notes related to the specific investigation within 30 days prior to trial.

The defendant was charged with driving while holding or using a handheld communication device contrary to Section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

A University of Guelph police officer observed the defendant using an Apple watch while stopped at a red light on South Ring Road in Guelph.

The defendant claimed she was merely checking the time.

The court found that the defendant was distracted from driving as evidenced by repeated head movements observed by the officer over approximately 20 seconds, and that the Apple watch constitutes a handheld communication device not exempt under the legislation.

The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to a $400 fine with 90 days to pay.