Chris Bendick

The applicant sought an order of mandamus compelling a justice of the peace to proceed with the respondent's trial for a speeding infraction.

The justice of the peace had previously ruled that the court lost jurisdiction over the respondent because administrative adjournments during the COVID-19 pandemic were not properly recorded on the offence notice.

The Superior Court found that the justice of the peace erred, as the respondent had attorned to the court's jurisdiction by appearing via a representative, and the administrative adjournments complied with COVID-19 directives.

The application for mandamus was granted.

The applicant sought orders in the nature of mandamus directing a justice of the peace to render a sentencing decision within a reasonable time and to accept proposed guilty pleas in several Provincial Offences Act matters.

The justice of the peace had accepted a guilty plea in one matter but reserved sentencing for approximately nine and a half months, and reserved for nearly a year whether to accept guilty pleas in four other matters despite joint submissions between the prosecution and defence.

The court held that the delay in sentencing risked infringing the accused’s right under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be sentenced within a reasonable time.

It further found that the refusal to accept the proposed guilty pleas lacked a legal basis and did not reflect a proper judicial exercise of discretion.

Orders of mandamus were issued directing the justice of the peace to deliver the sentencing decision and to accept the proposed guilty pleas and enter convictions.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review after a justice of the peace quashed a certificate of offence for a Highway Traffic Act charge on the court’s own motion during an early resolution proceeding.

The issue was whether the justice of the peace committed a jurisdictional error by quashing the certificate without a motion from the defendant.

The court held that under s. 36 of the Provincial Offences Act, objections to defects on the face of a certificate must be raised by the defendant through a motion to quash, and that the justice of the peace had no authority to initiate such a motion where the defendant was present.

The decision to quash the certificate was therefore a clear error of law and contrary to established precedent.

Orders of certiorari and mandamus were granted, restoring the proceeding and directing that a new early resolution meeting be scheduled.