2 total
A conviction for using a cell phone while driving was overturned due to inadequate reasons and misapplication of the burden of proof.
The defendant was charged with breaching section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act for using a cell phone while driving.
A police officer testified that he observed the defendant holding and scrolling through a cell phone while stopped at a red light.
The defendant testified that his phone was mounted on the dashboard and he only touched it to activate Bluetooth connectivity.
The trial judge convicted the defendant, finding the officer's evidence more credible.
The defendant appealed, arguing the trial judge's reasons failed to adequately explain the path to conviction and that the trial judge failed to apply the burden of proof correctly.
The court dismissed the delay application and convicted the defendant of failing to stop.
The defendant was charged with failing to stop for a red light contrary to section 144(18) of the Highway Traffic Act.
The defendant brought a Charter application under section 11(b) seeking a stay of proceedings on grounds of unreasonable delay.
The trial was delayed over approximately 29 months due to multiple adjournments, many caused by the defence's lack of diligence in obtaining disclosure, ordering transcripts, and subpoenaing witnesses.
The court found that while the overall delay exceeded the administrative guideline of 8-10 months, much of the delay was attributable to the defence's actions, which negated any inference of prejudice.
The court dismissed the stay application and found the defendant guilty of the red light offence based on credible testimony from two independent witnesses who observed the defendant enter the intersection on a red light.
