3 total
The court dismissed the appeal against a conviction for driving a commercial motor vehicle with major defects, rejecting arguments on improper summons, credibility assessment, and due diligence.
The appellant appealed his conviction for driving a commercial motor vehicle with a major defect, contrary to section 107 of the Highway Traffic Act.
The defects included inoperative brakes on a trailer and a crack in a wheel rim, discovered during an MTO inspection on June 18, 2017.
The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: lack of evidence of proper service of summons, improper application of credibility assessment principles, and failure to consider the due diligence defence.
The appeal court dismissed all grounds, finding that the summons was properly served, the trial judge correctly applied the W.D. analysis, and the trial judge properly assessed whether the appellant met the due diligence standard for a strict liability offence.
An incorrect set fine renders a certificate of offence invalid for default proceedings.
The appellant appealed a conviction entered under default proceedings for improperly using a blue flashing light contrary to section 62(32) of the Highway Traffic Act.
The certificate of offence listed an incorrect set fine of $85.00 when the correct fine for a commercial motor vehicle should have been $200.00.
The court found that the certificate was not complete and regular on its face and therefore could not support a conviction under the default proceedings.
The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed.
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that charging a corporation under the English translation of its French registered name was a correctable misnomer.
An appeal of a conviction under sections 107(11) and 207(1) of the Highway Traffic Act for operating a commercial motor vehicle with major defects.
The central issue was whether the corporate defendant was properly identified as "Trans-West Logistics Inc." when the vehicle registration documents identified the owner as "Logistiques Trans-West Inc." The appellant argued that the exact legal name must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that prior case law on corporate identity should have been binding.
The appellate court found that the prior cases involved materially different facts and that stare decisis did not apply.
The court determined that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the two names referred to the same corporate entity and that the name constituted a misnomer rather than a substitution of a different entity.
The conviction was upheld with the corporate name amended to reflect the registration documents.
