3 total
Motion to compel answers to discovery refusals and production of financial documents granted.
The Regional Municipality of York brought a motion to compel the Claimants to answer questions refused and produce documents requested during an examination for discovery in an expropriation compensation proceeding.
The requested documents included corporate tax returns, financial statements, and occupancy records.
The Tribunal found the requested information relevant to the damages claims and ordered the Claimants to provide the answers and documentation, noting that confidentiality is not a proper basis to refuse production of relevant documents.
Appeal allowed and acquittal entered as trial justice ignored driver's explanation for delayed stop.
The appellant appealed his conviction for driving while crowded contrary to section 162 of the Highway Traffic Act.
The charge arose from an incident where a small chihuahua dog jumped from the appellant's mother's lap onto the driver's seat and neck area while the appellant was driving on a four-lane highway with heavy traffic.
The trial justice convicted the appellant, finding he should have pulled over immediately.
On appeal, the court found the trial justice erred in failing to consider the appellant's evidence that he intended to pull over as soon as it was safely possible given the heavy traffic conditions and his position in the middle lane.
The appellate court allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal.
A police officer's testimony regarding a radar device's margin of error is admissible without expert qualification.
The appellant appealed his conviction for speeding 75 kilometres per hour in a 50 kilometres per hour zone.
The trial judge rejected evidence from the police officer regarding the margin of error (plus or minus two kilometres per hour) of the laser speed measuring device, ruling that such evidence constituted hearsay and that the officer was not qualified as an expert.
The appeal court found that the trial judge erred in rejecting this evidence, as the manufacturer's manual information was part of the officer's training and did not require expert qualification.
However, the appeal court upheld the conviction on the basis that the prosecutor need only establish that speeding occurred, with the excess speed being relevant only to penalty.
The sentence was varied to reflect the lower excess speed of 23 kilometres per hour rather than 25 kilometres per hour.
