Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Act matters - OCA

The appellant was convicted of careless driving and failing to report a snowmobile accident under the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act.

He appealed, arguing that the justice of the peace failed to consider his due diligence defence—specifically, his mistaken belief that he was uninjured and that the snowmobile damage was minor—and failed to provide sufficient reasons under the Sheppard standard.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the lower courts ignored the appellant's evidence regarding his condition, the apparent damage, and the trail conditions.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellants were convicted of driving an unsafe commercial vehicle after a roadside inspection revealed defective brakes.

On appeal to the Ontario Court of Justice, they sought to introduce fresh expert evidence regarding the brake measurements, which was rejected based on the Palmer test for fresh evidence.

The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the strict due diligence requirement of Palmer should not apply to Provincial Offences Act (POA) appeals.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Palmer principles, including due diligence, govern the exercise of discretion to receive fresh evidence under s. 117(1) of the POA.

The appellant appealed convictions and sentences imposed by a Justice of the Peace.

On consent, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions on three counts and ordered them permanently stayed.

The sentences on two other counts were reduced to $3,500 each.

The prosecutor appealed an order granting certiorari that had quashed a justice of the peace's refusal to permit cross-examination of a chief building inspector on a disclosure motion in a provincial offences prosecution.

The Court of Appeal held that certiorari was not barred by the Provincial Offences Act because the impugned ruling was a pre-trial order not directly appealable under s. 116(1).

However, the refusal to permit cross-examination did not breach natural justice, as the justice of the peace was entitled to control the disclosure process and require the defence to show why cross-examination was necessary.

The defence failed to establish a basis for further disclosure or for compelling cross-examination.

The appeal was allowed, the certiorari order was set aside, the matter was remitted for trial, and no costs were ordered.

The respondent was convicted of failing to stop at a red light based on evidence from a red light camera system.

The justice of the peace refused the respondent's request to subpoena the provincial offences officer who issued the ticket.

On appeal, the judge ordered a new trial, holding that such requests should generally be granted.

The municipality appealed.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal judge applied too liberal a standard; the defence must establish a reasonable and legitimate ground to question the officer.

However, the Court found the photographic evidence inadmissible because the required date, time, and location information was in an unexplained code, failing to comply with the regulation.

The appeal was allowed, but an acquittal was entered.

The appellant appealed an order setting aside a Justice of the Peace's decision to quash a Certificate of Offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Justice of the Peace committed a jurisdictional error by failing to properly consider the factors mandated by s. 34(4) of the Provincial Offences Act and relevant case law when deciding whether to amend the certificate.

Instead, the Justice of the Peace improperly based her decision on her view of the fairness of the legislative scheme under s. 9 of the Act.

The respondent constructed a dock without a building permit and was charged under s. 8(1) of the Building Code Act thirteen months after completion.

The trial judge and summary conviction appeal judge dismissed the charge, finding it was barred by the one-year limitation period in s. 36(8).

The Crown appealed, arguing the limitation period should run from the date of discovery and that the offence was a continuing one.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the discoverability principle did not apply to this specific statutory limitation period and that the offence was complete upon the conclusion of construction, not a continuing offence.

The appellant was convicted of selling professional lacrosse tickets without a licence under s. 2(20) of By-Law 20-85.

On appeal, he argued that tickets are not 'goods' within the meaning of the by-law and that the municipality lacked the authority to enact the provision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that tickets fall within the ordinary meaning of 'goods' as movable personal property, and that the municipality had the necessary authority under the Municipal Act to enact the licensing by-law.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the appeal judge exhibited bias during the hearing.

The Court of Appeal found that while the appeal judge's remarks were rude and intemperate, they did not reach the level of actual or apparent bias.

The Court further held that there was no basis to interfere with the trial decision, as the Justice of the Peace was entitled to accept the police officer's testimony.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent employer was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker was fatally injured by a reversing dump truck while acting as both a signaller and a spreader operator.

The trial judge directed a verdict of acquittal, ruling that the Crown could not prove a failure to provide a signaller under section 104 of the Regulation by showing the signaller failed to perform the duties prescribed by section 106.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the Crown's appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that sections 104 and 106 must be read together to promote the public safety purpose of the legislation, and ordered a new trial.