3 total
The court convicted the defendant of driving with a hand-held communication device, classifying the offence as absolute liability.
The defendant was charged with driving with a hand-held communication device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.
A police officer observed the defendant holding a cell phone in his hand while operating a motor vehicle at an intersection.
The defendant testified that the phone had fallen from its dashboard mount due to rough road conditions and that he was merely cleaning debris from the screen when observed.
The court classified the offence as one of absolute liability and found that the prosecution proved all essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court rejected the defendant's explanation as incredible and found that even if the offence were strict liability, the defendant failed to establish a due diligence defence.
Conviction entered.
The defendant was convicted of failing to stop at a red light after the court rejected his testimony regarding traffic signal mechanics and following distances as illogical.
The defendant was charged with failing to stop at a red light under s. 144(18) of the Highway Traffic Act.
A police officer testified that he observed the defendant's transport truck proceed through a red light at the intersection of Ontario Street south and Derry Road in Milton.
The defendant testified that the first truck ahead of him triggered a green light and that he proceeded through on the amber.
The court found the defendant's testimony internally inconsistent and illogical, particularly regarding the timing of the light cycle, the distance he maintained behind the lead truck, and his changing estimates of distances.
The court accepted the officer's evidence and found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
A fine of $260.00 was imposed with 90 days to pay.
The defendant was convicted of failing to stop for a school bus after the court rejected his testimony as illogical and self-serving.
The defendant was charged with failing to stop for a school bus contrary to section 175(11) of the Highway Traffic Act.
A constable positioned himself at a specific location to monitor complaints of drivers failing to stop for a school bus at a particular intersection.
The officer observed the defendant's vehicle traveling westbound at approximately 80 kilometers per hour, pass a stopped school bus with activated overhead flashing lights and stop arm extended, while a child was exiting the bus.
The defendant testified that he did not see the flashing lights before the bus stopped and was too close to stop.
The court found the officer's evidence credible, detailed, and consistent, while finding the defendant's evidence unclear, confusing, illogical, and self-serving.
The court rejected the defendant's various assertions and speculative responses, finding them insufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.
A conviction was entered and a fine of $400.00 was imposed with 30 days to pay.
