S. Bauman

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.

The appellant appealed her convictions for two offences under the Highway Traffic Act: failing to surrender her insurance card and careless driving.

The parties agreed the insurance card conviction appeal should be dismissed.

The appellant argued the careless driving conviction should be quashed because the certificate of offence contained an incorrect total payable amount ($485 instead of $490), rendering it incomplete and irregular on its face.

The court dismissed the appeal, distinguishing between errors in the set fine (which require quashing) and errors in the total payable amount (which do not).

The court held that while the set fine must be accurate to provide effective notice to the defendant, the total payable amount—which includes costs and victim fine surcharge—is not expressly required by statute and errors therein can be corrected by the justice of the peace upon conviction.