Stephen Lancaster

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss charges for alleged violations of Town of Fort Erie By-Law 129-90 regarding the use of a public storage facility and cargo containers on their properties.

The defendants argued that the prosecution constituted an abuse of process because similar charges had been brought against them on multiple prior occasions that were resolved in their favour, and that the Town was therefore estopped from continuing the prosecution.

The court rejected the motion, finding no evidence of bad faith, discrimination, or vexatiousness on the part of the Town.

The court held that a prior dismissal in 2013 did not preclude the municipality from ongoing enforcement of zoning by-law violations, and that the defence of legal non-conforming use remained a matter for adjudication at trial.

The Crown charged Dansway Logistics Inc., as owner of a commercial motor vehicle, with failing to ensure performance standards were met pursuant to section 107(3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The charge arose from an inspection on September 18, 2017, at the Vineland truck inspection station where Officer Fear identified several mechanical defects including loose fasteners on the suspension system and an allegedly inoperative fifth axle brake.

The defendant's mechanic, Gary Nott, subsequently inspected the vehicle and found that the fasteners were not loose and that the brake specifications were within acceptable parameters.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the Crown's evidence due to incomplete notes, gaps in the officer's recollection, and conflicting expert evidence, and dismissed the charge.

The defendants were charged with operating and permitting the operation of a commercial motor vehicle with brakes not maintained in good working order on the Queen Elizabeth Way highway, contrary to section 64(7) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The prosecution's case relied on evidence of a broken brake assembly and out-of-adjustment push rods discovered during a Level 1 inspection.

The defendant driver testified that he conducted a thorough pre-trip inspection each morning, found no defects, and that the truck stopped without incident.

The court found that while the actus reus was established, the prosecution failed to prove the defendant's liability beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court determined that the defendant exercised due diligence in his inspection obligations and that there was insufficient evidence of a noticeable defect that should have been detected.

Additionally, the prosecution failed to establish vehicle ownership for the corporate defendant due to the absence of a certified Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration Certificate.

Both charges were dismissed.

The defendants were charged with six counts each under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act for failure to provide necessary animal care, adequate medical attention, food and water, and permitting animals to be in distress.

Before trial, the defence brought a motion to exclude evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that two search warrants violated their section 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found the first warrant unlawful due to deficiencies in the Information to Obtain, including an inadequate anonymous tip, lack of informant credibility assessment, and insufficient corroborative investigation.

However, the court found the second warrant lawful.

Applying the Grant test, the court admitted all evidence from both warrants, finding that exclusion would undermine the truth-seeking function of the justice system in a case involving serious animal welfare concerns.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle on a highway without insurance, failing to affix a valid number plate, and failing to wear a seatbelt.

The defendant claimed his pickup truck was a self-propelled implement of husbandry (SPIH) and therefore exempt from these requirements.

The defendant also raised Charter rights concerns regarding detention and the right to counsel.

The court found that the defendant's Charter rights were not infringed during the routine traffic stop and that the defendant failed to meet his burden of proving the vehicle qualified for the SPIH exception.

The court convicted the defendant on all three counts.

The defendant was charged with driving a commercial motor vehicle tractor-trailer combination on the Queen Elizabeth Way highway with the tractor in a dangerous or unsafe condition, contrary to s. 84(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The charge arose from an inspection at a truck inspection station where an enforcement officer observed one missing fastener bolt and nut on the third axle front right wheel assembly, several loose washers, and an alleged 1/8 inch separation between the two wheels.

The defendant had undergone a defect-free inspection at the same station four days earlier and had conducted his own pre-trip inspection that morning.

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidence did not establish a prescribed critical defect under the applicable regulations, and expert witness testimony would have been required to establish that the observed defects rendered the vehicle dangerous or unsafe.

The defendant was charged with two counts under the Niagara Parks Act, Regulation 829: disturbing other persons and using abusive or insulting language that unnecessarily interfered with the use and enjoyment of the park.

The charges arose from the defendant's conduct at Grand View Plaza in Niagara Falls on August 2, 2016, where he displayed a sign with profane political commentary and engaged in loud, aggressive, and profane interactions with park visitors and police officers.

The defendant raised a Charter s.2(b) freedom of expression defense and sought to stay the charges based on a prior Superior Court decision.

The court dismissed the first count as lacking statutory foundation but convicted on the second count, finding that the defendant's conduct constituted abusive and insulting language that unnecessarily interfered with park visitors' enjoyment and caused an overtly manifested disturbance.

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 defendant, Baldev Kumar (Dave) Madan, and his numbered company 0558154 B.C. Ltd. were charged with failing to comply with Provincial Officer's Orders issued under the Environmental Protection Act.

The orders required the defendants to retain qualified waste management professionals to assess and classify waste at two Hamilton properties (249 Hess Street North and 245 Catharine Street North) by specified deadlines in 2010.

The Crown proved that the defendants owned the properties, which contained hazardous waste materials including drums of unknown liquids, electroplating chemicals, and other industrial waste.

The defendants failed to comply with the orders and provided no credible evidence of having retained qualified professionals.

The court found the defendants guilty of strict liability offences and rejected the due diligence defence, as the defendants failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts to comply with the orders.

The defendant was charged with 22 counts of acting as a motor vehicle salesperson without being registered under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, contrary to s. 3(1)(b).

The charges related to his employment at Jack McGee Chevrolet-Cadillac Limited from June 24, 2009 to November 14, 2009, during which time his sales license was suspended pursuant to a Consent Order.

The Crown proved the actus reus of the offence through testimony from dealership employees and customers establishing that the defendant engaged in various sales activities including showing vehicles, arranging financing, and negotiating extended warranties.

The defendant's due diligence defence failed as he did not take reasonable steps to verify his understanding of licensing requirements despite his extensive experience in the motor vehicle industry and prior notice from OMVIC that he was not to participate in motor vehicle transactions.

The officially induced error of law defence also failed as the defendant did not consult with appropriate officials or receive permission to sell vehicles.

Convictions were registered on all 22 counts.

The defendant was charged with operating a transport truck in contravention of an oversized vehicle permit under section 110(7) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown alleged that the defendant operated a commercial truck carrying heavy machinery with dimensions exceeding the permitted width of 2.6 meters without the required extremity warning lights and retro-reflective signage during night hours.

The defendant claimed he exercised due diligence by placing warning banners and flags and relying on manufacturer-installed mirror lights.

The court found the defendant guilty, determining that the worn-out banner lacked proper retro-reflective qualities and the mirror lights were inadequate to warn other drivers of the overhanging load.

The court rejected the defendant's due diligence defence, finding that as an experienced truck driver familiar with the permit, he should have ensured compliance with all safety requirements.

The defendant was charged with operating an unsafe motor vehicle contrary to section 84 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The collision occurred on August 12, 2010, when the defendant's 1996 Chrysler Voyager experienced brake failure on Chemong Road in Peterborough, resulting in a single-vehicle collision with a rock abutment and the death of a passenger.

The Crown proved that the vehicle was in a dangerous or unsafe condition due to multiple mechanical defects including brake system failures, extensive corrosion, and improper maintenance.

The defendant failed to establish due diligence in vehicle maintenance.

The court found the defendant guilty.

The defendant, a Technical Site Manager at Buckham Transport, was charged with providing false or misleading information to the Ministry of the Environment contrary to section 184(2) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Crown alleged that the defendant made contradictory statements regarding PCB-contaminated waste stored at the facility.

On September 17, 2008, the defendant stated he did not know what was in a tanker; on September 23, 2008, he stated he did not know how PCB contamination got into the tanker; but on November 18, 2008, he stated that the company was aware of the PCB material in September 2008.

The court found the Crown proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted the defendant of the strict liability offence, finding no evidence of due diligence.