L. Riviere

The appellant, Andrew Zaranek, appealed a conviction for operating a commercial vehicle and following too closely under section 158(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

He argued that the trial justice of the peace erred by finding the essential element of speed (exceeding 60 km/h) was proven, alleging judicial notice was improperly taken.

The appellate court found that proof of speed exceeding 60 km/h is an essential element for a charge under s. 158(2).

It clarified that the trial judge did not take judicial notice of speed, but rather inferred it from video evidence and took judicial notice of the Highway 401 speed limit.

The appellate court agreed that the video evidence supported a reasonable inference that the vehicle was travelling over 60 km/h.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Diljot Sethi, appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle while holding a handheld communication device, contrary to section 78.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The trial Justice of the Peace found the appellant guilty, imposing a $500 fine and costs.

The appellant argued that the Justice of the Peace erred in concluding that even if his testimony was accepted, it would still constitute an offence.

The appeal court reviewed the evidence and the relevant legislation, including exceptions for hands-free use and specific actions like making or ending calls.

The court found that the appellant's admitted use of the device to access his electronic logbook, even if mounted, was not a permitted exception under the regulation.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction.