Trevor J. Howard

The defendant was charged with careless driving causing bodily harm under section 130(3) of the Highway Traffic Act following a collision on August 2, 2023, on the Queen Elizabeth Way in Oakville.

The defendant merged onto the highway from the Third Line on-ramp and collided with a motorcycle driven by the victim, who suffered life-altering injuries.

The prosecution relied primarily on eyewitness testimony and collision reconstruction evidence.

The defendant was acquitted after the court found reasonable doubt regarding whether the defendant's driving fell below the standard of an ordinarily prudent driver, particularly given evidence of erratic driving by the motorcycle operator before the collision.

The Ontario Court of Justice convicted 614128 Ontario Ltd. (operating as Trisan Construction) of failing to stop at a red-light as captured by a red-light camera system.

The prosecution relied on certified documents including a certificate of ownership linking the vehicle's number plate to the defendant, and a certificate of offence confirming the red-light camera system was functioning properly.

The defendant challenged the sufficiency of ownership evidence and the operation of the camera system, and argued the vehicle could have stopped before turning right.

The Court found the certified evidence credible and reliable, rejected the defence's circumstantial evidence argument, and held the prosecution proved the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed a motion for particulars brought by The Econo-Rack Group Inc. (Konstant Manufacturing) in a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

The Applicant sought particulars regarding the alleged offence under section 45(b) of Ontario Regulation 851, arguing that without such particulars they could not adequately prepare a due diligence defence.

The Court held that the charge as drafted, combined with disclosure, the Crown’s opening statement, and the Inspector’s investigative report, provided sufficient detail to ensure a fair trial.

The Court emphasized that particulars concerning the cause of the accident or the means by which the offence was committed are not required under the Provincial Offences Act and that the focus is on the employer’s failure to uphold prescribed safety measures, not on causation narrowly defined.

This decision addresses the application of s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the context of workplace inspections under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

The applicant, The Econo-Rack Group Inc. (Konstant Manufacturing), challenged the Ministry of Labour inspector's warrantless collection of evidence following a workplace injury, alleging an unreasonable search and seizure.

The Court applied the two-step s. 8 analysis, focusing on whether a search or seizure occurred and if it was reasonable, and considered the "predominant purpose" test from R. v. Jarvis to determine if the inspector had crossed from regulatory inspection into penal investigation requiring a warrant.

The Court found that although Konstant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, the inspector's actions were authorized under s. 54 of the OHSA as part of a regulatory inspection, and no s. 8 breach occurred.

The application for exclusion of evidence and costs was dismissed.

The Ontario Court of Justice found a violation of s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to an unreasonable delay of approximately 21 months and 13 days between the filing of the certificate of offence and the first trial date in a red light camera offence case.

The court rejected the respondent's procedural objection regarding the absence of transcripts, finding that the delay was not attributable to the defence and that the early resolution meeting delay was outside the defendant's control.

The court granted a stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter.

The defendant was charged with one count of failing to stop for a school bus with overhead red lights flashing, contrary to section 175(11) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and the presumption of regularity to prove that the front overhead lights were flashing.

The court found that the presumption of regularity did not apply, citing R. v. Perry, and that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove the essential element beyond a reasonable doubt, as other reasonable inferences consistent with innocence could be drawn from the evidence and lack thereof.

The charge was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with careless driving, brought a s. 11(b) Charter motion for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The central issue was whether the 12-month period taken to schedule an early resolution meeting constituted defence delay.

The court found this period to be institutional delay, not defence delay, as early resolution meetings are a legitimate procedural step and defendants have no control over the meeting date.

With a total delay of 18 months and 29 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for Provincial Offences Act matters, and the respondent failing to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness, the motion was granted, and proceedings were stayed.

The applicant, charged with an owner liability red-light camera offence under the Highway Traffic Act, brought a Charter motion alleging a breach of her s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The respondent argued that s. 11(b) did not apply to such offences or, alternatively, that the delay was reasonable.

The court found that s. 11(b) does apply to these quasi-criminal proceedings, as they possess the indicia of criminal prosecutions and the penalties are penal in nature.

However, upon calculating the delay, the court determined that the net delay, after accounting for defence delay, fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

Consequently, the applicant's motion was dismissed.

The defendant, Joseph John Nazark, was charged with careless driving causing bodily harm or death under the Highway Traffic Act after colliding with a cyclist, Raymond Girard, during a left turn.

The defense argued the cyclist was improperly riding on the sidewalk and in the crosswalk, and that obstructions hindered visibility.

The prosecution contended the defendant failed to ensure a safe turn and that the cyclist had the right of way.

The court, applying the strict liability standard for careless driving, found that the defendant's driving fell below the standard of a reasonably prudent driver, regardless of the cyclist's actions, as the defendant failed to see what ought to have been seen and adjust to changing circumstances.

Nazark was found guilty.