P. Cassata

The defendant was charged with driving while holding or using a handheld communication device contrary to Section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

A University of Guelph police officer observed the defendant using an Apple watch while stopped at a red light on South Ring Road in Guelph.

The defendant claimed she was merely checking the time.

The court found that the defendant was distracted from driving as evidenced by repeated head movements observed by the officer over approximately 20 seconds, and that the Apple watch constitutes a handheld communication device not exempt under the legislation.

The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to a $400 fine with 90 days to pay.

The appellant appealed a conviction entered by a Justice of the Peace under section 9.1(1) of the Provincial Offences Act for an unsafe lane change contrary to section 154(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant did not attend trial and was deemed not to dispute the charge.

The appellant argued the certificate of offence was not complete and regular on its face because the officer used the outdated language "unsafe lane change" instead of the updated regulatory language "unsafe move - lane or shoulder" prescribed in Regulation 950.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the certificate provided effective notice of the offence when coupled with the correct section number and set fine, and that the regulatory language was permissive rather than mandatory.

The appellant appealed a conviction for speeding at 114 km/h in an 80 km/h zone on Highway 89.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal based on "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument" (OPCA) theories, including claims that the Highway Traffic Act applies only to commercial vehicles, that he was operating a private conveyance, that the traffic stop violated his human rights and UN principles, and that his driver's licence and ticket were void due to being signed without prejudice.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the appellant's arguments lacked legal merit and were based on erroneous legal interpretations.

The defendant was charged with operating a slow moving vehicle over 40 kilometres per hour contrary to Section 76(6.1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant was observed driving a pickup truck at 100 kilometres per hour while towing an implement of husbandry without a slow moving vehicle sign.

The defendant argued that the statutory language required a slow moving vehicle sign to be attached for the speed restriction to apply.

The court rejected this interpretation, finding that the legislation creates two types of offences: one for vehicles with a slow moving sign and one for vehicles towing an implement of husbandry regardless of signage.

The court convicted the defendant and imposed a fine of $85 plus costs and surcharge.

The defendant was charged with speeding 21 kilometers per hour over the posted speed limit on Wellington Road West in Guelph.

A police officer using a properly calibrated and tested Ultralyte laser speed detection device measured the defendant's vehicle traveling at 81 kilometers per hour in a posted 60 kilometers per hour zone.

The defendant testified he was traveling at 60 kilometers per hour based on his vehicle's speedometer.

The court accepted the officer's evidence over the defendant's, finding the laser device to be a scientifically and legally recognized instrument.

The court also addressed the defendant's argument regarding speed sign spacing under Regulation 200, finding that the speed zone was properly established and the offense occurred within the enforceable zone.

The defendant was convicted and sentenced to a fine of $94.50 plus victim surcharge, payable within 15 days.

The defendant was charged with obstructing a license plate in violation of Section 13 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The charge alleged that a plate cover obstructed the words "Yours to Discover" on the defendant's license plate.

The court found that while the plate cover did obscure the provincial motto, the numbers and validation sticker remained clearly visible and capable of being photographed by photo-radar and red-light camera systems.

The court took judicial notice that plate covers obscuring "Yours to Discover" are prevalent throughout Ontario and noted the absence of any enforcement initiatives or case law supporting prosecution for this type of obstruction.

The court concluded that the purpose of Section 13 was to ensure visibility of the plate numbers and validation sticker for identification and enforcement purposes, not to protect the provincial motto.

The charge was dismissed.