R. v. Crawley

R. v. Crawley

The Crown failed to prove the s.260(1)(c) requirement because the Ontario Prohibition Order omitted the territorial phrase 'in Canada'; the presumption of regularity cannot cure that omission under the facts, therefore an essential element of the s.259(4) offence was not proven and the accused was acquitted.

Citation
2009 NSPC 72
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Kyle Andrew Crawley
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Driving While Disqualified (s.259(4) Criminal Code) / Trial/decision (provincial Court)
Outcome
Accused found not guilty
Legal Topics
Driving While Disqualified, Prohibition Orders, Section 259, Section 260(1)(c), Presumption of Regularity, Proof of Elements
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Traffic Law Evidence Driving While Disqualified Prohibition Orders Section 259 Section 260(1)(c) Presumption of Regularity +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Kyle Andrew Crawley

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Driving While Disqualified (s.259(4) Criminal Code) / Trial/decision (provincial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Ontario Prohibition Order complied with s.260(1)(c) by informing the offender of s.259(4)
  2. 2 Whether the Crown may rely on the presumption of regularity to cure any deficiency in the Prohibition Order
  3. 3 Whether the Crown proved an essential element of the s.259(4) offence

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to prove the s.260(1)(c) requirement because the Ontario Prohibition Order omitted the territorial phrase 'in Canada'; the presumption of regularity cannot cure that omission under the facts, therefore an essential element of the s.259(4) offence was not proven and the accused was acquitted.

Court Disposition

Accused found not guilty

Orders

  • Acquitted of the offence contrary to s.259(4) of the Criminal Code