Thomas Stinson

The Corporation of the City of London appealed the dismissal of a Provincial Offences Act charge against Christopher Sheeler for driving with no currently validated permit.

The trial justice of the peace dismissed the charge, believing viva voce evidence was required for identification despite the prosecution relying on certified evidence (Certificate of Offence and Plate-by-Date search) under section 48.1 of the POA.

The appeal court found that the trial justice erred in law by requiring viva voce evidence and making a finding not supported by the evidence, as certified statements are proof of facts in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

The respondent did not call any evidence.

The defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle while holding or using a handheld telecommunications device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

An officer observed the defendant holding an iPhone at a red light and believed she was using it to send text messages.

The defendant claimed she was using the device as a GPS system and was not touching the screen.

The court found that even accepting the defendant's version of events, the device was not securely mounted as required by Ontario Regulation 366/09, and therefore the defendant was guilty of the offense.

The applicants sought intervener or amicus status in proceedings under the Dog Owners' Liability Act involving charges of animal cruelty and dog fighting.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to grant such status and, if so, whether it should exercise that discretion.

The court held that while statutory courts may have implied jurisdiction to appoint interveners in exceptional circumstances, the applicants failed to meet the established common law tests for intervention.

The application was denied as the applicants lacked direct interest in the matter, their participation was not practically necessary, and their interests were substantially aligned with the defendants.

The accused was charged with careless driving following a motor vehicle collision at an intersection.

The Crown presented evidence from police officers and the other driver involved in the collision.

The accused testified that she stopped at the stop sign, looked both ways, waited for traffic to pass, and then proceeded into the intersection where she was struck.

The court applied the legal test from R. v. Beauchamp and R. v. Wilson, finding that while the accused made a brief mistake in judgment, this constituted mere inadvertent negligence rather than the degree of carelessness required for conviction.

The charge was dismissed.

The Crown prosecuted an employer for two offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following the fatal fall of an experienced welder from a temporary A-frame and plank platform at a height of approximately 6.5 feet.

Count 1 alleged failure to install guardrails at the open sides of a raised wood platform contrary to section 25(2)(h) of the OHSA.

Count 2 alleged failure to provide information, instruction and supervision to protect the worker from falling contrary to section 25(2)(a) of the OHSA.

The defendant did not advance a due diligence defence.

The court found that section 13 of the Industrial Establishments Regulation, which requires guardrails at open sides of raised surfaces, applies only to fixed premises attached to buildings, not to temporary mobile equipment.

Section 85 of the same regulation, which governs fall protection equipment, forms a complete code for this type of temporary platform work and does not require guardrails at heights below 3 metres.

The Crown improperly attempted to extend requirements beyond the applicable regulation through the general duty clause.

Both charges were dismissed.

A seventeen-year-old defendant pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle with an improper means of attachment and operating an unsafe motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant's improperly attached homemade trailer became detached and struck a cyclist, resulting in the cyclist's death.

The court imposed fines and probation, balancing the defendant's youth, remorse, and lack of prior record against the severe and tragic consequences of the offences and the need for general deterrence.

The accused was charged with multiple serious offences including armed robberies with firearms, forcible confinement, conspiracy, and weapons offences.

After being released on bail twice with sureties, the accused allegedly breached the curfew condition of her recognizance.

The original surety revoked her bail, resulting in the accused being arrested on breach charges.

The Crown opposed release on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The court granted release on a new recognizance with the same surety, finding that the bail plan was reasonable and had previously succeeded, and that the tertiary ground did not justify detention despite the serious nature of the charges.

The Meaford and District Fire Department was charged with three counts under section 25(2)(h) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act following injuries to two firefighters during a structure fire at Reeds Restaurant on September 9, 2009.

After a directed verdict motion, two charges were dismissed.

The remaining charge alleged the defendant failed to activate an accountability system to track firefighters entering the burning structure.

The court found that while the accountability system was not fully implemented according to the defendant's own Standard Operating Guidelines, an accountability system was in fact activated in various forms at the scene.

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no accountability system was activated, as particularized in the charge.

The court dismissed the remaining charge and acquitted the defendant.

The Meaford and District Fire Department faced three charges under section 25(2)(h) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from injuries to two firefighters at a structure fire on September 9, 2009.

The charges alleged failures to: (1) activate an accountability system to track firefighters; (2) maintain effective supervision through a command post; and (3) establish a Rapid Intervention Team.

Following the Crown's case, the defendant brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.

The court granted the motion on counts 4 and 6, finding insufficient evidence on the particulars alleged, but dismissed the motion on count 1, finding evidence capable of supporting a conviction.