Ritchie Noel

The defendant pleaded guilty to stunt driving contrary to s. 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act after being detected driving 212 kph in a posted 90 kph zone on Highway 17.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a $3,000 fine and 30-day licence suspension.

The court rejected the joint submission as markedly out of line with public expectations and contrary to the public interest, finding the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court imposed a $7,000 fine and a maximum two-year driving suspension, emphasizing the egregious nature of the speeding (122 kph over the limit) on a dangerous two-lane highway and the need for general and specific deterrence.

The appellant appealed a conviction for failing to stop at a red light contrary to Section 144(18) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The sole issue was whether the Justice of the Peace erred in refusing to grant a directed verdict at the end of the Crown's case.

The Justice of the Peace took judicial notice of how traffic lights operate to infer that the light was red for the appellant.

The appellate court found that while the Justice of the Peace erred in taking judicial notice of traffic light operation without accounting for mechanical failure, there was sufficient evidence from the Crown witness and an admission by the appellant to support the conviction.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant corporation was charged with six counts of operating commercial vehicles over the allowable weight during freeze-up periods under section 119(4) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The prosecution proved the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt using weigh scale records from the Weyerhaeuser mill.

The defendant raised a due diligence defence, arguing it took reasonable steps to ensure compliance.

The court found the defendant guilty on all counts, holding that while the defendant implemented various measures (air gauges, driver training, a 105% target weight), these were insufficient given the known limitations of air gauges and the availability of alternative scales for verification.

The defendant was sentenced to minimum fines of $100 per count with six months to pay.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of a court employee charged with parking in excess time on a meter contrary to the City of Kenora Traffic Bylaw.

The trial judge had found the offence to be one of strict liability and applied the due diligence defence.

The appellate court found the trial judge erred in law by mischaracterizing the offence as strict liability when it is actually one of absolute liability.

The court held that due diligence is not a defence to absolute liability offences and that the defendant's personal circumstances, including difficulty obtaining breaks from work and safety concerns, do not excuse non-compliance with the bylaw.

The appeal was allowed, a conviction was entered, and a set fine of $20.00 plus costs was imposed.

The respondent company was convicted of three offences under Section 119(4) of the Highway Traffic Act for operating overweight vehicles during freeze-up.

The company appealed the convictions while the Crown appealed the sentence.

The court upheld all convictions, finding no error in law by the trial justice.

However, the court found that the trial justice erred in suspending the passing of sentence based on unsubstantiated submissions regarding potential bankruptcy.

The court imposed the minimum fine of $100 plus $20 costs on each charge for a total of $360, with ninety days to pay.