Mark A.J. McDonnell

The appellant was convicted of failing to yield the right of way on entering a highway from a private road, contrary to section 139(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The collision occurred when the appellant's vehicle exited the Travel Lodge parking lot and struck the vehicle of Paul LaFrance, who was turning left onto Elgin Mills Road from northbound Yonge Street.

The appellant appealed the conviction, arguing there was insufficient evidentiary foundation that her vehicle had entered from a private driveway.

The appellate court upheld the conviction, finding that the trial record provided a sufficient factual basis for the conclusion that the appellant's vehicle had entered from the Travel Lodge parking lot and failed to yield to oncoming traffic.

The Crown appealed a decision by a Justice of the Peace who granted a stay of a careless driving charge under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to delay in bringing the matter to trial.

The appeal was conducted as a review under section 136 of the Provincial Offences Act.

The court found that the delay of approximately 12-13 months from the notice of intention to appear to trial completion significantly exceeded the guidelines established in R. v. Morin.

The Crown's argument that the defence was not ready for trial because it did not request disclosure until June 24, 2014 was rejected.

The court found that the inferred prejudice from such delay outweighed any societal interest in prosecution of the highway traffic offence, and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought costs following the withdrawal of a provincial offence charge.

The applicant had been issued two defective tickets for failure to surrender his licence and failure to have two plates.

After the initial tickets were quashed, a third ticket was issued but the applicant claimed he never received notice of it.

He was convicted in absentia and fined, leading to suspension of his driver's licence.

Upon appeal, the Crown withdrew the charge.

The applicant then sought costs for the reinstatement fee and paralegal fees, arguing a Charter breach.

The court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to award costs after charge withdrawal and that the circumstances did not constitute abuse or flagrant impropriety warranting a costs remedy.

The appellant was convicted at trial of speeding contrary to s. 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.

On appeal, the appellant raised seven grounds of error, including allegations that the Justice of the Peace erred in proceeding without counsel, failed to inform the appellant of his right to an adjournment, erred in granting an amendment to the charge, applied the wrong legal standard, and failed to adequately explain the rejection of the appellant's evidence.

The appeal court found that while the Justice of the Peace applied an incorrect legal standard (strict liability instead of absolute liability), this error benefited the appellant and did not affect the verdict.

The court upheld the conviction, finding no reversible error.