N. Lund

This decision addresses whether Notices of Trial sent exclusively by email under the Provincial Offences Act (POA) and its regulations provide sufficient jurisdiction to proceed under section 9.1 of the POA when defendants fail to appear.

The court found that although defendants provided email addresses and signed Notices of Intention to Appear indicating trial options, the POA administration failed to obtain explicit consent that the technical specifications of the electronic documents (PDF format) were acceptable to the defendants as required by O. Reg. 67/12 s. 4(b).

Consequently, service by email only was insufficient to establish jurisdiction, and the court directed that Notices of Trial be issued by mail to regain jurisdiction.

The defendant brought a Charter motion under s. 11(b) for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay in a provincial offence matter.

The court found a total delay of 23.75 months from the offence date to the first trial date, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling set by R. v. Jordan.

While acknowledging the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the court also identified significant systemic delay caused by a shortage of judicial resources, particularly since August 2022.

The court concluded that the delay was unacceptable and breached the defendant's Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time, granting a stay of proceedings.

The defendant pleaded guilty to careless driving causing bodily harm under section 130(3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The incident occurred on July 4, 2019, when the defendant's red Dodge Caravan collided with a motorcycle on Fisher Mills Road in Cambridge, causing life-threatening injuries to the motorcycle driver who lost his right leg.

The court accepted a joint submission and imposed a $2,000 fine, one-year probation with statutory terms, a four-month driver's license suspension with limited exceptions, and nine months to pay.

The court emphasized the importance of general deterrence and driver vigilance regarding smaller vehicles on highways.

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.