Stunt driving case

A curiosity about the Drutz decision is that it is NOT an appeal decision but rather a trial decision with a Judge sitting at first instance. Normally an OCJ judge would be hearing appeals from a JP. Since in Drutz Justice West was sitting as a trial judge, in theory anyway, the decision is persuasive but not binding on other trial courts. Since Drutz is the second case where an OCJ judge ruled against the stunt driving by speeding regulation nothing much turns on the point but, in theory anyway, Drutz is of lesser impact.

Second court ruling against Ont. stunt driving law won't derail province

November, 23, 2009 - 07:30 pm Maurino, Romina - (THE CANADIAN PRESS)

TORONTO - A second ruling against Ontario's stunt driving law is unlikely to put the brakes on the legislation, although minor tweaking may be needed to ensure it stays in place after it was once again ruled unconstitutional.

Attorney General Chris Bentley defended the law Monday after a Newmarket judge dismissed stunt driving charges against Alexandra Drutz, an 18-year-old woman charged with going 157 kilometres per hour on Highway 407 north of Toronto.

Justice Peter West ruled that having a potential penalty of up to six months in jail for people caught driving 50 kilometres an hour over the posted speed limit violates the Charter of Rights because the law does not allow the accused to present a defence.

But Bentley said the law is an important public safety initiative and will continue to be enforced.

"The law was brought in to save lives," said Bentley.

"It is extremely important that we have safe roads, not only for those who are driving but all of the people who are users of the road."

Bentley said he still considers the 2007 law constitutional, and will fight to uphold it when the Court of Appeal hears an initial case in January.

Toronto criminal lawyer James Morton called West's decision "a real blow to the legislation," and said it will have some influence on the January appeal.

"It's leading to there being a weight of decisions in favour of finding it unconstitutional," said Morton.

"It's going to be difficult to have both of these decisions overturned."

The problem could be fixed with a little tweaking, however, because both rulings took issue with the same provision.

"To fix it all they have to do is remove the availability of a prison term," said Morton.

"And because the prison term is imposed by regulation, they could make the change next Wednesday in cabinet."
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4

416 225 2777