3 total
The court dismissed an appeal of a careless driving conviction, upholding the denial of an adjournment for disclosure and the reliance on circumstantial evidence.
The appellant appealed his conviction for careless driving from Provincial Offences Court.
The appeal raised three grounds: (1) the Justice of the Peace erred in refusing an adjournment to obtain disclosure; (2) there was a breach of the right to a fair trial due to non-disclosure; and (3) the prosecution failed to establish all elements of careless driving beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court found that the adjournment was properly refused, the trial was fair despite disclosure issues, and the circumstantial evidence supported the conviction.
The appeal was dismissed.
A snow-clearing truck's permit charge was stayed due to officially induced error, and its overweight charge dismissed under a statutory exemption.
A commercial motor vehicle operator was charged with two offences under the Highway Traffic Act: (1) driving without a currently validated permit contrary to section 7(1)(a), and (2) operating an overweight vehicle in violation of section 121(1).
The vehicle was a snow-clearing truck being transported for engine repairs outside its normal service area.
The court determined that the first charge should be stayed based on the defence of officially induced error of law, as the defendant had received erroneous advice from a Ministry of Transportation official regarding registration exemptions for snow-clearing equipment.
The second charge was dismissed because the court found the vehicle qualified for a weight exemption under section 114(3) of the HTA, as it was being operated on behalf of a municipality and was equipped with snow-clearing equipment (a salter), even though the ploughs had been temporarily removed for repairs.
The trial judge erred in excluding certified Ministry documents and driving records in driving while suspended trials.
Three consolidated appeals of driving while suspended charges.
The Crown appealed the dismissal of charges against three respondents where the trial judge excluded documentary evidence of licence suspension under section 210(7) of the Highway Traffic Act.
The trial judge rejected the documents on the basis that they were incomplete copies and that driving records would be prejudicial to fair trial interests.
The appellate court found these exclusions constituted reversible error, holding that section 210(7) mandates receipt of properly certified documents and that driving records are admissible evidence of an essential element of the offence.
The court allowed the appeals, ordering a new trial for Lamanna and substituting convictions with minimum fines for Jane and Caldwell.
