Mary E. Pascuzzi

Ian R. Fummerton, owner and operator of ABI Trucking Inc., pleaded guilty to being a party to dangerous driving under section 249 of the Criminal Code.

The charge arose from his failure to ensure compliance by drivers with provincial hours of service regulations, permitting single-driver round trips between Thunder Bay and Toronto that could not be legally completed within regulated timelines, and condoning the use of multiple logbooks to falsify records.

This conduct created a significant risk to public safety, although Fummerton was not charged with causing the fatal accident that initiated the investigation.

The Crown sought 12 months imprisonment, while the defence argued for a conditional discharge or conditional sentence.

The court emphasized general deterrence and denunciation, finding that Fummerton's prolonged, persistent, and frequent disregard for safety regulations and economic motivation warranted incarceration.

The appellant appealed convictions for assault, assault with a weapon, mischief, voyeurism, and breaches of probation arising from incidents involving his former partner.

He argued the trial judge committed a Morrissey error by misapprehending evidence related to alleged bias and motive of the complainant, and further erred by failing to analyze whether a video recording was made in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy for purposes of the voyeurism offence under s. 162 of the Criminal Code.

The court held that the trial judge properly considered the discrepancies in the evidence and reasonably rejected the defence theory that the complainant fabricated allegations out of spite.

The court also held that although the trial judge did not explicitly analyze the privacy element of voyeurism, it was not a live issue at trial and the evidence clearly established a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon under section 267(a) of the Criminal Code for spraying the complainant in the face with bear spray.

The accused did not deny the spraying but argued the court should reject the complainant's evidence and find a reasonable doubt.

The court found the essential elements of the offence were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

While there were weaknesses in the complainant's evidence, they were not so serious as to warrant complete rejection.

The accused's testimony was equally or more incredible.

The court found the accused had sprayed the complainant in the facial area, bear spray constitutes a weapon, and the accused's possession of a prohibited weapon was not adequately explained.

The accused was found guilty.