Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Act matters - ONCJ

The accused was charged with impaired operation causing bodily harm, dangerous operation causing bodily harm, and impaired operation following a serious motor vehicle collision that resulted in life-threatening injuries to passengers.

The Crown's case relied on expert toxicology evidence establishing a projected blood alcohol concentration of 66-96 mgs/100ml at the time of driving, the manner of driving, and accident reconstruction evidence.

The defence argued that the absence of physical indicia of impairment created reasonable doubt.

The court found that the accused's driving demonstrated mental impairment consistent with alcohol consumption, including failure to perceive the need to slow speed and failure to react to wet road conditions.

The court convicted on all three counts.

The defendant appealed his conviction for stunt driving under s. 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, having been found guilty of operating a motor vehicle at 112 km/h in a 60 km/h zone.

The defendant raised arguments challenging the jurisdiction of the legislature to regulate motor vehicle operation, the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace to hear the matter, and the constitutional validity of the stunt driving provisions.

The court rejected all arguments and dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction.

The appellant appealed her conviction for driving a motor vehicle while using a hand-held device, arguing that her section 11(b) Charter rights were violated due to delay of 10 months and 24 days between charge and trial.

The trial judge dismissed the 11(b) application.

On appeal, the court considered whether the Jordan framework for presumptive delay ceilings applies to provincial offences under Part I of the Provincial Offences Act.

The court held that while the Jordan framework applies to Part I proceedings, the presumptive ceiling for such offences should be lower than the 18-month ceiling for criminal matters, likely in the 12-15 month range, given the simpler nature of provincial offences and minimal intake requirements.

Since the delay was well under 12 months, no 11(b) violation was found and the appeal was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with driving while under suspension contrary to section 53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown proved that the defendant's driver's licence was suspended at the time of the offence through Ministry of Transportation certificates and officer testimony.

The defence challenged the identification of the defendant, arguing that the Crown failed to prove an essential element of the offence.

The court found the identification evidence probative and sufficient, distinguishing the case from precedents involving false identification charges.

The defendant was convicted.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit after police found him outside his vehicle in an intoxicated state following a collision with a parked car.

The Crown conceded it could not prove the offence of operating over 80 due to lack of evidence establishing the time of the accident.

The Crown alternatively sought a conviction for the included offence of having care and control of a motor vehicle over 80.

The court dismissed the charge, finding that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had actual care and control of the vehicle.

The evidence was equally consistent with the defendant remaining at the scene to comply with his statutory duty under the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant was charged with failure to report a material change in connection with entitlement to benefits within 10 days of the change, contrary to s. 149(2) of the Workplace Safety & Insurance Act, 1997.

Following an initial acquittal and a successful appeal by the prosecutor, a new trial was ordered.

Prior to the re-trial, the defendant's agent raised the issue of fitness to stand trial, arguing the defendant was unable to conduct his defence due to memory loss regarding the relevant events.

The court ordered a forensic psychiatric assessment.

The forensic psychiatrist concluded that the defendant was fit to stand trial, finding that the defendant's claims of memory loss were exaggerated and that he could communicate with counsel.

The court found the defendant fit and remitted the matter to Provincial Offence trial court for trial.

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused bus driver was charged with dangerous driving causing death and failing to stop after an accident with intent to escape civil or criminal liability, following the death of a 14-year-old passenger struck by his bus at the intersection of Finch Avenue East and Neilson Road in Toronto on December 19, 2014.

The Crown sought committal to trial.

The court found that the evidence did not establish a marked departure from the standard of care required for dangerous driving, and there was no evidence the accused was aware of the accident.

The accused was discharged and not committed to trial.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol contrary to section 253(1)(a) and operating a motor vehicle while over 80 contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial focused on whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in care or control of the motor vehicle.

The accused argued she made a conscious decision to stop her vehicle on an on-ramp due to weather and alcohol consumption, with no intention to continue driving.

The court found the accused guilty of care or control while over 80 based on the rebuttable presumption in section 258(1)(a), and alternatively on de facto control.

The court rejected the accused's credibility regarding the timing and circumstances of her decision to stop, finding her conduct demonstrated bad judgment and created a realistic risk of danger.

The accused was acquitted of the operate while over 80 count due to insufficient evidence regarding the timing of operation.

The defendant was charged with two offences under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act: operating a motor vehicle without insurance and knowingly using a false insurance card.

The trial proceeded in the defendant's absence.

The Crown proved that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle on Highway 403 in Oakville on November 7, 2011, and that she was the registered owner of the vehicle.

The defendant's insurance policy had been cancelled on October 8, 2011, due to non-payment of premiums.

The defendant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the vehicle was insured at the time of the offence.

The defendant also failed to establish the defence of reasonable care.

The Crown stayed the second count, and the defendant was convicted on the first count.

A manufacturing company was charged with two strict liability offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to ensure safe procedures and provide adequate instruction and supervision regarding the movement of a heavy spindle component.

A worker was injured when a 10,000-pound spindle fell on his foot during an attempted rotation.

The court found the Crown proved the actus reus but accepted the due diligence defence, finding the accident was not reasonably foreseeable given the company's safety protocols, training programs, and the worker's deliberate deviation from established procedures using an unapproved method.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control and over 80 care or control of a motor vehicle on September 22, 2013.

The vehicle, a silver BMW, was stuck on a tree on a boulevard after being driven by another person.

The accused attended the scene and attempted to move the vehicle by pushing it with another car.

The Crown relied on both the statutory presumption under section 258(1)(a) and de facto care or control.

The court found the accused guilty on both bases, rejecting his testimony that he only entered the vehicle to look for keys and finding instead that he was attempting to put the vehicle into reverse.

The court also found de facto care or control based on the accused's actions in attempting to move the vehicle while impaired.

The defendant pleaded guilty to driving while disqualified.

He was prohibited from driving for 10 years following a 2010 conviction for the same offence and had a lifetime suspension of his driver's license.

The Crown sought 8 months' jail and a 10-year driving prohibition.

The defence sought a conditional sentence with probation and community service.

The court imposed 4 months' incarceration and a 10-year driving prohibition, finding that denunciation and deterrence were the preeminent sentencing principles and that a conditional sentence would be inappropriate given the defendant's extensive criminal record, poor compliance history, and risk of reoffence.

The defendant was charged with failing to stop at an accident scene, being in care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired, and having a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood.

The defendant collided with a parked vehicle in Oshawa and left the scene.

Police observed signs of impairment and arrested the defendant.

The defendant challenged the arrest on Charter grounds, arguing the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds and violated his right to counsel.

The court found the police had proper grounds for arrest and that the defendant's right to counsel was properly respected.

The defendant was found guilty on all charges.

Anray Limited, a small excavation and concrete company, was charged with three counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from an incident on August 10, 2010, at a residential renovation project in Toronto.

The charges involved: (1) failure to ensure an excavator was moved safely; (2) failure to ensure the excavator operator was assisted by a signaller; and (3) failure to ensure the operator wore a seat belt.

The defendant was found guilty on Counts 1 and 3, with Count 3 stayed as a contributing element of Count 1.

The defendant was acquitted on Count 2.

The court rejected the defendant's due diligence defence, finding that the company's informal, oral safety practices were insufficient and that the defendant failed to establish reasonable precautions in the circumstances.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.

The victim, a 13-year-old girl, was struck and killed by the accused's vehicle while crossing Airport Road in Caledon, Ontario.

The Crown alleged the accused was speeding; the defence argued the victim's unexpected entry into traffic made the collision inevitable and that the accused's speed did not constitute dangerous driving.

The court found the accused was travelling at 152 KPH in a 50 KPH zone near a residential area and village entrance on a day when pedestrian traffic was reasonably foreseeable.

The court convicted the accused of dangerous driving causing death, finding both actus reus and mens rea established, and that causation was proven despite the victim's unexpected action.

A voir dire was held to determine the admissibility and voluntariness of statements made by the defendant to a police officer.

The defendant was charged with permitting operation of a motor vehicle without insurance contrary to the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

The defendant contended that his statements were involuntary because the officer presented him with two options: either the defendant would be charged with the regulatory offence or the defendant's brother would be charged with the criminal offence of taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent.

The defendant also argued that the officer failed to provide Charter cautions.

The court found that the statements were voluntary because the two-option scenario was presented after the defendant had already made the inculpatory admissions, and therefore could not have induced those statements.

The court also found that no detention occurred and that the officer was not required to provide a caution at the time of the initial questioning.

The defendant was charged with speeding (89 km/h in a 60 km/h zone) and driving a motor vehicle with no currently validated permit.

The Crown proved the speeding charge through officer testimony regarding laser speed measurement device operation and calibration.

The defendant was convicted of speeding.

The permit charge was dismissed because Ontario Regulation 628/07 makes affixing validation evidence to the number plate mandatory but affixing it to the ownership document discretionary, rendering the charge invalid.

In a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal of two bar owners for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision.

The deceased driver, who had consumed alcohol at the defendants' licensed establishment, was found to have a blood alcohol level exceeding 200 milligrams percent at the time of the collision.

The Crown alleged violations of the Ontario Liquor Licence Act constituted unlawful acts supporting manslaughter charges, or alternatively, that the defendants' conduct amounted to criminal negligence.

The court discharged both accused, finding that violations of liquor licensing regulations, while potentially constituting unlawful acts, were not objectively dangerous as required by law, and that the evidence did not establish the marked departure from the standard of care necessary for criminal negligence.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in excess of the legal limit following a traffic stop on the Gardiner Expressway.

The defendant sought to exclude the Breathalyzer test results on the grounds that police violated his Charter right to counsel by failing to facilitate his access to his counsel of choice.

The court found that the defendant was not guilty of impaired driving due to insufficient evidence of impairment independent of the Breathalyzer results, but guilty of driving with an excessive BAC after determining that while a Charter breach occurred, the evidence should be admitted under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm and failing to stop at the scene of an accident knowing that bodily harm had been caused.

The incident occurred when the accused operated an ATV in a public park in a dangerous manner, performing donuts and driving at high speed through a skateboard park where members of the public were present.

The accused struck a person, causing a fractured femur.

The court found the accused guilty of dangerous driving causing bodily harm but not guilty of the aggravated failure to stop charge, instead finding him guilty of the lesser included offence of simple failure to stop.