J. De Falco

The defendant was charged with two counts of failing to remain at the scene of an accident contrary to section 200(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The prosecution sought to amend the informations to correct the dates and locations of the offences to conform with the evidence adduced at trial.

The court granted the amendment motion and found the defendant guilty of both offences based on circumstantial evidence establishing that the defendant was the driver of a vehicle involved in hit-and-run incidents on two separate dates.

This decision addresses the City of Brampton's application under s. 51 of the Provincial Offences Act to compel personal attendance of defendants represented by certain paralegals and firms accused of filing frivolous and meritless appeals to delay convictions from appearing on driving records.

The court initially ordered personal appearances to conduct proper plea inquiries but reconsidered this order, allowing statutory declarations under s. 43 of the Evidence Act in lieu of personal attendance.

The ruling extensively discusses the abuse of process and obstruction of justice doctrines, referencing prior cases including Toronto (City) v. Becerra, and highlights the ethical obligations of paralegals under the Law Society of Ontario's Rules of Conduct.

The decision underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the justice system and preventing misuse of appeals to "game the system."