R. v. Nilsen, 2011 ONCA 322

ENDORSEMENT

1At the conclusion of the appellant’s oral argument in this case, we indicated that we did not need to hear from the prosecutor and that the appeal was dismissed, with reasons to follow. These are those reasons.

2The appellant appeals from the decision of Trafford J. dismissing her application for certiorari to quash her convictions for offences of dog running at large contrary to a City of Toronto By-law and fail to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent the dog from biting or attacking another domestic animal and being owner of a dog that bit or attacked another domestic animal both contrary to the Dog Owners Liability Act. Trafford J. held that certiorari was not available and that the appellant should have pursued her appeal rights under the Provincial Offences Act to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court. We agree with that decision. Section 141(3) of that Act provides: “No application shall be made to quash a conviction, order or ruling from which an appeal is provided by this Act, whether subject to leave or otherwise”. That provision makes it clear that certiorari is not available in these circumstances and that the appellant was required to pursue her appeal remedies.

3All of the issues that the appellant attempted to raise before Trafford J. and again in this court could be raised by way of appeal including her complaints about the conduct of the prosecutor, the conduct of the justice of the peace, the validity of the informations, the allegations concerning the transcript, the sufficiency of the evidence and the amount of the penalties. Other complaints by the appellant that she claims go to jurisdiction of the provincial offence court are without merit. In particular, her claim that she was not properly served, that the city official did not have the authority to swear the information, and that city officials trespassed on her property did not affect the court’s jurisdiction. Finally, there is no merit to the appellant’s claim of illegal merger. The justice of the peace had jurisdiction to try the offences. That there may have been other orders made, such as the interim order of July 25, 2005, did not affect the jurisdiction of the trial court.

Signed: “M. Rosenberg J.A.”