Peter Sutton

The defendant was charged with "turn not in safety" contrary to section 142(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a motor vehicle collision at the intersection of Solina Road and Taunton Road in Clarington.

The prosecution alleged the defendant's right turn from Solina Road onto Taunton Road caused emergency maneuvers by other vehicles.

The court found that the defendant completed her right turn safely into a gap in traffic and had stopped on Taunton Road waiting to turn left when the collision occurred.

The collision resulted from vehicles two or three cars behind the defendant, not from the defendant's initial turn.

The charge was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to drive in a marked lane contrary to section 154(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal raised two grounds: (1) whether the Justice of the Peace had a duty to inquire if the appellant required interpreter services, and (2) whether the Justice of the Peace should have inquired into the suitability of an adjournment given that disclosure was provided on the trial date.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that no inquiry into interpreter services was required as the appellant had completed the Notice of Intention without requesting an interpreter and conducted the trial in English without apparent difficulty.

While the court acknowledged that providing disclosure on the trial date presents procedural concerns, it found that the Justice of the Peace appropriately addressed the issue by permitting a recess for the appellant to review the disclosure and determine how to proceed.

The defendant was charged with careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act following a road rage incident at the intersection of Aerowood Drive and Dixie Road in Mississauga.

The prosecution alleged the defendant pushed the complainant into the intersection with his tractor-trailer and subsequently collided with the complainant's vehicle while making a U-turn.

The defendant denied the allegations, claiming he was unaware anyone was in front of his truck and that the incident occurred on private property.

The court found the defendant guilty, determining that the driving conduct occurred on a highway and constituted careless driving without due care and attention or reasonable consideration for others using the highway.

The defendant was charged with acting as an unlicensed private investigator contrary to section 6 of the Private Security and Investigative Services Act by conducting investigations regarding a municipal tax sale property and subsequently approaching the original owner with an offer to recover any surplus from the tax sale in exchange for a fee.

The defendant conducted research on the property initially for his own purposes as a prospective bidder, but after his unsuccessful bid, used the information gathered to locate and contact the original owner with a business proposal.

The court found the defendant guilty, determining that despite initially gathering information for personal purposes, his subsequent use of that information with the intent to profit from it constituted acting as an unlicensed private investigator.

The appellant appealed his conviction for speeding, challenging whether the Crown must strictly prove that the police officer who operated the laser speed measuring device was formally qualified to do so.

The trial Justice of the Peace found the officer sufficiently trained and qualified based on evidence that he had received training on the device, tested it before and after his shift in accordance with manufacturer's specifications, and performed five manufacturer-recommended tests.

The appeal court upheld the conviction, holding that formal certification is not a prerequisite to admissibility of speed measurement evidence.

The court found that qualifications go to the weight of evidence rather than admissibility, and that the officer possessed sufficient training and experience to operate the device properly.