4 total
A stay of proceedings was granted due to unreasonable delay exceeding the 18-month Jordan ceiling.
The defendant brought applications for a stay of proceedings based on violations of Charter rights.
The primary application was under Section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging denial of the right to trial within a reasonable time.
The defendant also brought applications under Section 7 of the Charter and Section 35 of the Provincial Offences Act regarding disclosure.
The court found that the applicable delay was 21 months and 21 days, exceeding the 18-month ceiling for Ontario Court of Justice proceedings.
The court determined the case was not particularly complex and that the Crown failed to remedy disclosure issues.
A stay of proceedings was granted.
Accused convicted of driving on closed highway after bypassing police cruiser blocking lane.
The accused was charged with driving on a closed highway under s. 134(3) of the Highway Traffic Act after driving around a police cruiser that was blocking a lane due to a collision.
The accused, representing himself, argued that the officer did not use the specific signs or barricades prescribed by Regulation 599.
The court found that the regulation was not exhaustive for emergency situations and that the officer lawfully closed the road using his cruiser.
The accused was convicted and fined $85.
The court convicted the defendant of speeding, accepting laser device evidence and clarifying speed sign spacing rules.
The defendant was charged with speeding 21 kilometers per hour over the posted speed limit on Wellington Road West in Guelph.
A police officer using a properly calibrated and tested Ultralyte laser speed detection device measured the defendant's vehicle traveling at 81 kilometers per hour in a posted 60 kilometers per hour zone.
The defendant testified he was traveling at 60 kilometers per hour based on his vehicle's speedometer.
The court accepted the officer's evidence over the defendant's, finding the laser device to be a scientifically and legally recognized instrument.
The court also addressed the defendant's argument regarding speed sign spacing under Regulation 200, finding that the speed zone was properly established and the offense occurred within the enforceable zone.
The defendant was convicted and sentenced to a fine of $94.50 plus victim surcharge, payable within 15 days.
The court upheld the constitutionality of Ontario's motorcycle handlebar height restriction, finding it neither vague nor anachronistic.
The defendant was charged with operating a motorcycle with handlebars exceeding the maximum height of 380 millimetres as prescribed by Ontario Regulation 596, section 10(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.
The defendant challenged the constitutionality of the regulation on grounds of vagueness and anachronism, arguing violations of sections 7, 9, and 26 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The court found the regulation was not vague, not anachronistic, and did not violate the defendant's Charter rights.
The defendant was convicted after the prosecution proved the handlebars measured 830 millimetres above the seat.
