R. Tatangelo

The appellant appealed her conviction for speeding contrary to section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The central issue was whether the Crown established sufficient evidence regarding the testing and reliability of the radar device used to measure the appellant's speed.

The appellant also challenged the officer's qualifications, the proof of the posted speed limit, and the trial justice's limitation of cross-examination.

The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the evidence was sufficient to establish the device's reliability, the officer's qualifications, and the posted speed limit.

The limitation on cross-examination did not significantly impact the trial.

Two defendants were charged with operating motor vehicles on Highway 401 while performing a stunt (speeding 80 km/h over the limit), racing, and careless driving.

The Crown's evidence established that the defendants were paced by a police officer at 180 km/h in a 100 km/h zone.

The defendants claimed they were travelling at 120-140 km/h and invoked the defence of necessity, arguing they accelerated to create distance from a vehicle following closely behind.

The court found the Crown's evidence credible and reliable, rejected the necessity defence as failing the modified objective test, and applied the Kienapple principle to stay the careless driving and racing charges, resulting in convictions for performing a stunt.

The accused brought a motion seeking recusal of the Justice of the Peace, a declaration of mistrial, and costs against the Crown.

The motion alleged prosecutorial misconduct regarding disclosure vetting and content, as well as misapprehension by the Justice of the Peace regarding disclosure materials.

The accused was charged with stunt driving under the Highway Traffic Act.

The court dismissed all grounds of the motion, finding that the accused failed to meet the high threshold required for recusal, that any disclosure errors were unintentional and remedied, and that the Crown's conduct did not constitute a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable standards warranting a costs award.

The accused was charged with stunt driving under the Highway Traffic Act for speeding 173 km/h in a posted 100 km/h zone.

The defence brought a section 7 Charter application seeking disclosure of the full operational manual for the radar device used and GPS records from the officer's vehicle.

The Crown and OPP argued these were third-party records not in their possession or control.

The court determined the records were third-party records subject to the O'Connor disclosure regime and dismissed the application, finding the defence failed to establish that the requested records were "likely relevant" to an issue at trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction for speeding under the Highway Traffic Act.

The trial judge made comments at the outset suggesting the defendant should resolve the matter by guilty plea, and later curtailed cross-examination of the police officer regarding the laser speed detection device.

The appellate court found a reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the trial judge's remarks and conduct, which suggested predisposition to conviction and concern about court docket management rather than fair adjudication.

Although the trial judge erred in refusing to admit the laser device manual as an exhibit, this ground of appeal was dismissed as the cross-examination could have proceeded without the exhibit.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal was entered, as ordering a new trial would not serve the ends of justice given the minor nature of the offence, the flawed process, and the burden on court resources.