2 total
The court dismissed a stunt driving charge because the Crown failed to prove the defendant repeatedly changed lanes, as required by the regulation.
The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle and racing by outdistancing or attempting to outdistance another motor vehicle while travelling at a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed, contrary to section 172 of the Highway Traffic Act.
A careless driving charge was withdrawn.
The Crown's case relied on witness testimony describing two vehicles travelling at high speed, passing a witness vehicle, and subsequently crashing.
The defendant's co-accused testified for the defence.
The court found the defendant guilty of the racing charge, determining that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant drove at a marked departure from the lawful speed and attempted to outdistance another vehicle.
However, the court acquitted on the charge as drafted because the Crown failed to prove the element of "repeatedly" changing lanes as required by the regulation.
Relevant portions of a radar manual must be disclosed, but strict compliance with manufacturer testing specifications is not required.
The defendant was charged with speeding (115 km/h in an 80 km/h zone) on Highway 7 in Pickering.
The trial involved legal arguments regarding disclosure of a radar manual, the admissibility of the manual in cross-examination without the author present, and whether strict compliance with manufacturer's specifications is required for radar evidence.
The court ruled that the relevant portion of the radar manual should be disclosed, that it may be used in cross-examination without the author present, and that manufacturer's recommendations are guidelines rather than strict requirements.
The trial proceeded on the merits following these rulings.
