Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Act matters - OCJ

The defendant was charged with failing to display two plates, having a plate not plainly visible, and failing to surrender an insurance card during a traffic stop.

The court acquitted the defendant of the obstructed plate charge, finding the plate was plainly visible despite an aftermarket cover.

However, the court convicted the defendant of failing to display a front plate, rejecting his due diligence defence, and of failing to surrender an insurance card, ruling that providing an expired card does not satisfy the statutory requirement.

The defendants, members of the Mohawk Nation of the Grand River, were charged with offences under the Highway Traffic Act.

They brought 18 pre-trial motions, primarily arguing that the Provincial Offences Court lacked jurisdiction because the alleged offences occurred on the sovereign territory of the Mohawk Nation, as granted by the Haldimand Proclamation of 1784.

The court dismissed all 18 motions, finding that it was bound by the Court of Appeal for Ontario's precedent that the Haldimand Proclamation did not grant fee simple ownership or absolute title to the Six Nations Confederacy.

The court also held that as a statutory court, it lacked the jurisdiction to grant the various prerogative writs and equitable remedies sought by the defendants, such as mandamus, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief.

The appellant appealed his conviction for careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act following a rear-end collision.

At trial, the appellant argued his actions amounted to mere momentary inattentiveness when he looked away from the road to read a sign.

The appeal court reviewed the trial justice's refusal to grant a mistrial over late disclosure, the application of the ordinary prudent driver standard, and the assessment of dash camera evidence.

Finding no errors in law, misapprehension of evidence, or miscarriage of justice, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

The defendant was charged with driving while suspended after a police officer found him passed out in the driver's seat of a running vehicle that was stopped partially on a private driveway and partially on a public roadway.

The court considered whether the officer's entry onto the private property was lawful in light of the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. McColman.

The court held that the officer was acting lawfully under common law duties to protect life and property.

The court further found that the vehicle was on a 'highway' because its rear tires were on the public roadway, and that the defendant was 'driving' despite being asleep.

The defendant was found guilty in an ex-parte trial.

The corporate defendant, a furniture store, and its two directors were charged with multiple offences under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, following complaints from two consumers.

One consumer received incorrect and defective furniture and the store failed to replace it.

The other consumer paid for a bed on a lay-away plan but the store refused to deliver it, demanding further payments for a separate item, and failed to refund the money upon cancellation.

The court found the corporate defendant guilty of failing to provide a proper future performance agreement, engaging in unfair practices, and failing to provide a refund.

The directors were found guilty of failing to prevent the corporation from committing these offences.

The offender was convicted of failing to yield to a pedestrian and driving while under suspension under the Highway Traffic Act after striking and killing an 85-year-old pedestrian in a crosswalk.

The offender had a lengthy history of driving while suspended for unpaid fines.

The court emphasized deterrence and denunciation for regulatory offences, sentencing the offender to 15 days of intermittent imprisonment, 12 months of probation, and a $500 fine.

The defendant was charged with nine offences under the Dog Owners' Liability Act and a municipal by-law after his two large dogs roamed freely, attacked several people, and bit one person.

The trial proceeded in the defendant's absence.

The court found the defendant guilty on all counts, noting the offences were strict liability and the defendant failed to exercise reasonable precautions.

The court also found that orders under the Provincial Offences Act were necessary for public protection.

The defendant pleaded guilty to careless driving causing death after crossing a double solid yellow line and striking an oncoming vehicle head-on, killing the other driver.

At the time of the collision, the defendant's driver's licence had been suspended for 20 years, and he had an extensive record of driving offences.

The court emphasized deterrence and proportionality, sentencing the defendant to 75 days of intermittent custody, two years of probation, and a five-year driver's licence suspension.

The appellant, an employee of a car dealership, was convicted of unauthorized use of a dealer plate after being stopped while driving to work.

The trial judge relied on the arresting officer's testimony that dealer plates could only be used by the owner, a family member, or for demonstration purposes.

On appeal, the court found the trial judge erred in law, as the regulation permits private use of a dealer plate by persons other than the owner and their family.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered to determine if the vehicle was part of the dealer's inventory.

The accused was charged with stunt driving and failing to comply with a roadside breath demand.

The accused conceded guilt on the stunt driving charge.

On the breath demand charge, the court found that while the accused failed to provide a suitable sample after 13 attempts, there was reasonable doubt regarding his mens rea due to evidence of potential defects in the approved screening device (ASD).

The officer had not personally tested the device, it was calibrated outside the 14-day window, and the officer lacked recent training.

The accused was acquitted of the Criminal Code charge.

The corporate defendant was convicted of undertaking development without a permit in a development control area under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, after constructing an armour stone wall.

The Crown sought a $4,000 fine, while the defence argued for a nominal $150 fine due to a history of compliance.

The court weighed the paramount goal of general deterrence for environmental regulatory offences against the defendant's prior compliance, ultimately imposing a $3,000 fine.

The defendant was charged with failing to yield from a private driveway under the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant brought a pre-trial motion to quash the Part I certificate of offence because the municipality was missing from the certificate.

The court held that the omission of the municipality was not a jurisdictional defect and could be amended under the broad amending powers of the Provincial Offences Act, as the amendment was descriptive and did not prejudice the defendant.

The motion to quash was denied.

The accused was charged with driving while suspended, making unreasonable noise, failing to identify, and assaulting and obstructing a peace officer following a traffic stop.

The court found that the officers failed to strictly comply with the preconditions for a warrantless arrest under s. 33(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, rendering the arrest unlawful and acquitting the accused of the criminal charges and failure to identify.

However, based on uncontradicted evidence, the accused was found guilty of driving while suspended and making unreasonable noise.

The appellant appealed her conviction for holding a hand-held wireless communication device while driving, contrary to s. 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

At trial, she testified that she merely picked up her cell phone from the floor to place it on the passenger seat while stopped at a red light.

The appeal judge held that while the prosecution does not need to prove the device was operable or that the driver intended to use it, the term 'holding' requires a sustained physical holding and does not capture a momentary handling of the device.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed.

The defendant was charged with careless driving after her van was struck by a cyclist while crossing an intersection.

The defendant had stopped at a stop sign, yielded to traffic, and proceeded across the intersection but was forced to stop when a parked vehicle's door opened in her path.

A cyclist travelling down a hill at a high rate of speed struck the side of her van.

The court found that the defendant exercised reasonable care and skill, and the collision was the result of unforeseen circumstances.

The charge was dismissed.

The corporate defendant was sentenced for eight environmental offences, including permitting the transportation of waste in unapproved vehicles, failing to take representative samples, storing waste in an unapproved area, and depositing hazardous waste at a non-hazardous landfill site.

The court considered the defendant's extensive prior record of environmental convictions as an aggravating factor, while acknowledging some mitigating efforts to comply and upgrade facilities.

The court imposed a total of $144,000 in fines, including the mandatory minimum $100,000 fine for the hazardous waste deposit offence.

The defendants, a restaurant corporation and its president, faced quasi-criminal charges under the Liquor Licence Act for permitting disorderly conduct and drunkenness.

Prior to trial, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario held an administrative hearing and found the corporation had contravened the Act, suspending its licence.

The defendants brought a pre-trial motion to stay the quasi-criminal charges, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction based on res judicata and double jeopardy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that regulatory proceedings to determine licence fitness are fundamentally different from quasi-criminal prosecutions, involve different burdens of proof, and do not trigger double jeopardy protections.

The prosecutor sought to admit written statements from three absent tenants during a trial for Fire Code violations regarding an alleged illegal rooming house.

The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule, assessing necessity and reliability.

The court found all statements met the reliability threshold, but only one met the necessity threshold because the prosecutor failed to make adequate efforts to locate and subpoena the other two witnesses.

Consequently, one statement was admitted and two were excluded.

The defendant was charged with making an unsafe left turn under s. 142(1) of the Highway Traffic Act after her vehicle collided with a longboarder.

The court found that the longboarder was visible and the turn was not made in safety.

The court rejected the defendant's due diligence defence, finding she failed to take all reasonable steps to observe the approaching longboarder, despite his dark clothing and unlawful use of the roadway.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act.

The trial was delayed multiple times, primarily due to the unavailability of a court-appointed Punjabi interpreter, resulting in a total delay of over 26 months.

The defendant brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing his right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed.

The court applied the Morin framework, finding 16 months of institutional delay attributable to the Crown.

The court inferred prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair trial and granted a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter.