Veruschka Fisher-Grant

Olavo Williams-Cordeiro was convicted of careless driving causing death in the context of a street race on Highway 403, where his vehicle was driven at speeds between 141-193 km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone.

The race culminated in a fatal collision involving a motorcycle driven by Mr. Chen.

The court considered aggravating factors including the street racing context, the defendant’s troubling driving record with multiple speeding convictions post-incident, and the need for general and specific deterrence.

Mitigating factors included the defendant’s remorse, youth, difficult upbringing, and positive family support.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 9 months, followed by 18 months probation with conditions including a prohibition on driving, and a four-year driving prohibition.

The defendant, Olavo Williams-Cordeiro, was charged with careless driving causing death and stunt driving following a high-speed incident on Highway 403.

The court found that the defendant, along with a motorcyclist and another car, were engaged in a joint enterprise of racing, driving at speeds significantly exceeding the limit (up to 193 km/hr for the defendant's vehicle).

The motorcyclist collided with a vehicle lacking rear lights and died.

The court determined that the defendant's driving behaviour, characterized by excessive speed, tandem driving, and dangerous lane changes in the dark, fell below the standard of a reasonably prudent driver, constituting careless driving.

The court rejected the defence argument that the collision occurred through no fault of the defendant, emphasizing that the dangerous activity of racing created a foreseeable risk, and the presence of a vehicle without lights was a foreseeable highway hazard.

The defendant was found guilty of both charges, with the Kienapple principle to be considered for sentencing.

The applicant, Alexander Haxby, was charged with violating sections 15(1) and 58 of the Quarantine Act.

He brought a motion arguing arbitrary detention, unlawful intrusive tests conflicting with the Bill of Rights, lack of officer authority, and mootness of charges due to the Act no longer being in effect.

The court dismissed all grounds of the motion, finding that screening officers had authority, the certificate of designation was not a disclosure requirement, the requested stay under the Provincial Offences Act was misplaced, the certificate of offence was not defective or moot, and any detention or search was not arbitrary given the public health context of the pandemic.

The applicants, charged with violating the Quarantine Act, brought numerous pre-trial motions challenging the validity of the charging documents, the legislation itself, the authority of the screening officer, alleged breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (including sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11(a), 11(e), 11(i), and 15), and unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The court dismissed all motions, finding the charging documents valid, the Quarantine Act enforceable, the screening officer's authority established, no Charter breaches proven due to lack of evidence or prior judicial precedent, and no unreasonable delay after accounting for defence-caused delay and the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

The matter was remitted for trial.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to unreasonable delay, arguing the 18-month Jordan ceiling for Provincial Offences Act matters was exceeded.

The total delay from the filing of the Certificate of Offence to the trial date was 31 months and 11 days.

The court considered the COVID-19 pandemic as a discrete exceptional event and deducted 22 months and 6 days (from May 29, 2020, to April 4, 2022) from the total delay, resulting in a net delay of 9 months and 7 days.

As this net delay was below the presumptive ceiling, the onus shifted to the applicant to demonstrate meaningful efforts to expedite the proceedings and that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

Finding no evidence of such efforts by the defence, the court dismissed the application for a stay.

The defendant brought a motion for disclosure of materials in a speeding offense case.

The defendant sought: (1) notes of other tickets issued by the officer that day; (2) discipline and human resource records of the officer; (3) the complete user manual for the laser speed measuring device; (4) calibration and maintenance history of the device; and (5) the officer's training record.

The court denied most requests as speculative fishing expeditions lacking sufficient factual foundation or likely relevance.

The prosecution agreed to provide the officer's qualification date and confirmation of qualification on the date of the offense.

The matter was remanded for trial.