V. Rondinelli

The appellant appealed her summary convictions for dangerous driving and failing to remain at the scene of an accident, as well as her sentence.

The trial judge found the appellant deliberately used her vehicle to strike a victim who had sued her in Small Claims Court.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's decisions to allow an amendment to the information, deny an adjournment, refuse evidence of a prior mistrial, and handle a memory-refreshing objection.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed in part because the trial judge exceeded the Crown's sentencing position without providing an opportunity for further submissions and improperly treated a lack of remorse as an aggravating factor.

The sentence for failing to remain was varied to a concurrent sentence of time served plus one day.

The applicant, charged with drug-related offences and possession of proceeds of crime, applied under ss. 462.34 and 462.341 of the Criminal Code for the release of $300,000 in seized funds to pay his legal expenses.

The court found that while the applicant had a possessory interest in the funds, he failed to prove he had no other means to pay his legal expenses.

Specifically, he failed to account for remaining bank balances, lines of credit, potential family assistance, and failed to apply for Legal Aid.

The application was dismissed without prejudice.

The appellant brought a summary conviction appeal challenging convictions and fines imposed for two violations of s. 65(1) of the Health of Animals Act arising from transporting and unloading a cow in a condition causing undue suffering.

The appellant argued that the trial judge applied the wrong legal test for “undue suffering,” improperly relied on expert veterinary pathology evidence, and erred in failing to apply the Kienapple principle to stay one of the convictions.

The court held that the trial judge correctly applied the causation requirement clarified in Doyon v. Canada (Attorney General) and made supported findings that both the transportation and unloading independently caused undue suffering.

The court further held that the veterinary pathologist was properly permitted to give opinion evidence within her expertise and that the two offences were distinct and did not arise from the same transaction.

The appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed.