S. Davidson

The defendant was charged with operating an unsafe vehicle contrary to section 84 of the Highway Traffic Act after a wheel fell off his vehicle and struck a pedestrian.

The court found this to be a strict liability offence requiring a two-step analysis: first, the Crown must prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt; second, if successful, the defendant must establish due diligence on a balance of probabilities.

The Crown proved the defendant was driving an unsafe vehicle when the wheel fell off.

However, the defendant established that he and his wife took all reasonable steps to maintain the vehicle, including regular servicing at a dealership and checking the wheels after hearing a noise.

The defendant was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with permitting a motor vehicle to be operated without insurance contrary to section 2(1)(b) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

A police officer observed the defendant's vehicle being driven by another person, checked the vehicle's registration, and later called an insurance company.

The Crown argued that once ownership and lack of insurance were established, the defendant's permission to drive could be inferred.

The court dismissed the charge, finding that the Crown failed to prove all essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly the element that the defendant permitted the driver to operate the vehicle.

The defendant was charged with careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act.

A second charge of failing to stop for police was dismissed at the prosecutor's request.

The prosecution alleged the defendant was driving erratically, swerving, and passed vehicles through a stop sign.

The defendant testified he was attempting to distance himself from a vehicle being driven erratically by what he later discovered was a plainclothes police officer.

The court found conflicting evidence and applied the credibility test from R. v. W.D., ultimately finding reasonable doubt and acquitting the defendant.

The court held that a simple error of judgment is insufficient for a careless driving conviction.