D. Allen

The defendants were charged with zoning bylaw offences under a provision that contained a drafting error, using the word 'personal' instead of 'person'.

The court considered whether it had the jurisdiction to correct the legislative drafting mistake by reading in the correct word.

Applying the principles of statutory interpretation, the court found that while the provision was a manifest absurdity and had an obvious correction, there was no traceable error.

The court declined to usurp the municipal council's legislative role to fix the bylaw.

Consequently, the information was quashed because the defective provision did not relate to an offence known in law.

The defendants, charged with zoning bylaw infractions, brought several in-trial motions.

They sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, arguing their s. 11(a) rights were infringed because the counts lacked an essential averment specifying the 'wrongful use' of the land, and the prosecution refused to provide formal particulars.

The court dismissed the Charter motion and the alternative motion for particulars, finding the defendants were sufficiently informed of the specific offence through disclosure and pre-trial discussions.

The court also dismissed a motion to quash count #1 for being laid outside the 6-month limitation period, noting the limitation period was suspended by O. Reg. 73/20 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Finally, the court addressed disclosure requests, ordering the prosecution to review and provide McNeil disclosure if relevant, and to provide redacted notes of the complaint, while denying requests for the investigator's CV and the complainant's name based on informer privilege.

The applicant brought an application for certiorari raising multiple complaints regarding his prior drug convictions, including alleged disclosure failures, abuse of process, and delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

He also sought to review the denial of a private prosecution and the quashing of related subpoenas.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review an earlier conviction made in the same court, noting that such matters must be directed to the Court of Appeal.

The court further found that the private prosecution issues were procedurally defective and brought in the wrong venue.