3 total
Charter Appeal allowed
Crown appeal of an acquittal on a charge of careless driving contrary to s. 130 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.
The respondent was operating a tractor-trailer that struck the rear of a milk truck on a rural highway.
The trial judge acquitted the respondent, finding that while the respondent's conduct fell below the standard of a reasonable driver, it did not constitute careless driving because it was merely inadvertent negligence and the respondent had been driving properly for approximately five kilometres prior to the incident.
The appellate court allowed the appeal and registered a conviction, clarifying the legal test for careless driving as a strict liability offence and rejecting the trial judge's erroneous application of additional elements.
Holding a cell phone between the ear and shoulder while driving constitutes an offence under the Highway Traffic Act.
The appellant appealed her conviction for driving with a hand-held communication device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.
The facts were undisputed: the appellant was observed operating her vehicle with a cell phone positioned between her right ear and shoulder, with both hands on the steering wheel.
The appellant argued she was not "holding" the device and alternatively that her conduct was saved by the hands-free mode exception.
The court rejected both arguments, finding that "holding" includes positioning the device between the ear and shoulder, and that hands-free mode contemplates manufacturer-designed adaptations, not merely using the device without hands.
The appeal was dismissed.
Municipality acquitted of workplace safety charges due to obsolete statutory standard and proven due diligence.
The Corporation of the City of Guelph was charged with failing to ensure that a wall in a workplace was capable of supporting all loads to which it may be subjected, contrary to section 25(1)(e) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
The charge arose from the collapse of a privacy wall in a women's washroom at a municipal park in 2009, which resulted in the death of a fourteen-year-old student.
The court found that the Crown failed to prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt because the charging section incorporated the outdated concept of "allowable unit stresses," which had been superseded by limits states design methodology in 1997.
The court also found that even if the actus reus had been established, the City had exercised due diligence in issuing the building permit by reasonably relying on the professional stamps of the architect and engineer, and that the City was not required to conduct further investigation based on the engineer's involvement in a prior unrelated project.
