ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: Toronto (City) v. Greene, 2026 ONCJ 279

DATE: 2026 05 14

Toronto

BETWEEN:

TORONTO (CITY) (Respondent)

— AND —

NEVILLE GREENE (Appellant)

DECISION REGARDING APPEAL OF CONVICTION

Before Justice Brock Jones

Heard on May 13, 2026

Written Reasons Provided on May 14, 2026

K. Sawyer................................................................................................... for the Respondent

N. Greene......................................................................................................... self-represented

Jones J.:

Introduction

[1] On June 4, 2007, Neville Greene was charged with one count of failing to stop at a red light, contrary to section 144(18) of the Highway Traffic Act (“HTA”). He pleaded not guilty. His trial was held before Justice of the Peace J. Frederick in Toronto on July 10, 2008.

[2] An officer testified that he committed the offence. Mr. Greene testified in his own defence and denied committing the offence. He was convicted.

[3] Mr. Greene appealed his conviction, and the appeal was heard on May 13, 2026. Mr. Greene acted diligently. He perfected his appeal within the applicable timelines. It was not explained to me why it took nearly 18 years for the appeal to be heard, other than that the paperwork may have been “lost” for a long time. Nevertheless, for the reasons that follow, I granted the appeal. I found that the Justice of the Peace’s reasons for conviction were inadequate and failed to address any of the central issues raised at trial. I also found that the Justice did not provide the degree of assistance necessary to ensure a fair trial for a self-represented litigant.

The Evidence Act Trial

[4] HTA section 144(18) creates the following offence:

(18) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle and shall not proceed until a green indication is shown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (18).

[5] The prosecutor called one witness at the trial, PC Haji. He testified that while on general patrol, he observed Mr. Green driving a motor vehicle. Mr. Green was travelling eastbound on Sheppard Avenue West in the left-turn lane. Mr. Green’s vehicle entered the intersection after the light had turned red, and he turned left onto northbound Jane Street. He stopped the vehicle and issued Mr. Green a ticket for failing to stop at a red light.

[6] During the officer's cross-examination, Mr. Greene attempted to provide the officer with photographs of the intersection and have him authenticate them. The purpose was to have the officer respond to the suggestion that there was construction in the area at the time, which might have impeded normal traffic flow. The photographs also had impeachment value, as the officer had previously testified that there was no construction in the area at the time. Mr. Greene asked the Justice how he could present the evidence properly, and the Justice sarcastically quipped that “[t]his isn’t Law and Order” and he could testify later if he wanted to do so.

[7] When given the opportunity, Mr. Greene testified that he entered the intersection when the traffic light was green. He had to wait until the light turned amber before he could proceed through the intersection because another vehicle was in front of him. During cross-examination, he accepted the prosecutor’s suggestion that the traffic light might have turned red before he finished moving through the intersection, but not before he entered.

[8] Again, Mr. Greene attempted to enter the photographs into evidence. The photographs were taken the day after the offence date, and the Justice ruled they were therefore inadmissible. The Justice also demanded that the photographs be notarized.

The Trial Court’s Decision

[9] The Justice of the Peace’s reasons for conviction consist of the following two sentences:

The officer was clear, concise and convincing of all the elements of the offence and the observations he made. There will be a finding of guilt and there will be a fine imposed.

Insufficiency of Reasons

[10] Reasons for findings of fact and legal conclusions at trial should not be scrutinized in search of error: R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20, at para. 69. The Supreme Court has been clear that appellate review of reasons must be done “functionally” and “contextually”: G.F. at paras. 68-82. Justices are presumed to know the applicable law in their courts. However, reasons must explain how the presiding jurist arrived at the result and permit meaningful review.

[11] The reasons in this case fall woefully short of this standard. The Justice of the Peace does not explain that the appellant was presumed innocent or that the Crown bore the burden of proof on the essential elements of the offence. More concerning, the Justice of the Peace states, without any reasoning, that the officer's evidence was accepted and the appellant was convicted. The Justice of the Peace did not address or analyze the appellant's testimony at all, even though it could raise a reasonable doubt on an essential element of the offence: whether the appellant proceeded into the intersection when the light was red. Nor did the Justice of the Peace explain why the officer's testimony was accepted and the appellant's rejected, or why the appellant's testimony was not at least capable of raising a reasonable doubt: see R. v. W.D..

[12] Reasons are particularly important when a court wrestles with contradictory evidence on a key issue: see R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, at para. 55. While a trial court’s credibility findings deserve “particular deference”, the court must still provide “some articulation of the reasons for those findings”: see G.F. at para. 81. Here, there was no articulation whatsoever. I recognize this was a short trial on a simple matter, and that provincial offences courts are inundated with multiple matters that may be set for a trial on any given day. Even considering the extremely busy nature of these courts and the routine nature of this trial, the failure of the Justice to abide by the inherent duty to provide meaningful reasons cannot be excused.

Duty To Assist A Self-Represented Litigant

[13] Furthermore, at no point did the Justice of the Peace inform Mr. Greene, who was self-represented, of how the trial process operates, the presumption of innocence, what the prosecutor needed to prove to secure a conviction for this particular offence, or that he was entitled to present contradictory evidence in addition to testifying himself, if he chose to do so. As previously discussed, at one point during the trial, Mr. Greene asked whether he could call evidence that construction was ongoing at the intersection on the day in question, and the Justice of the Peace dismissed his question without providing any guidance on how he might properly present that potentially exculpatory evidence.

[14] Trial courts have a duty to ensure that self-represented persons have a fair trial: see R. v. P.D.C., 2021 ONCA 134, at para. 51. The Ontario Court of Appeal held in R. v. Breton, 2018 ONCA 753, at paras. 13-14:

It is well settled that where an accused is self-represented at trial, the presiding judge has a duty to ensure that the accused has a fair trial. To fulfill that duty, the trial judge must provide guidance to the accused to the extent that the circumstances of the case and those of the particular accused may require it. Within reason and without becoming counsel for the accused, trial judge must provide assistance to aid the accused in the proper conduct of his defence and to guide him, as the trial unfolds, in such a way that the defence is brought out with its full force and effect.

[15] In POA court, how much assistance is required in any given case will be for the presiding Justice of the Peace to determine: R. v. Ivall, 2018 ONCA 1026, at para. 166. These courts often have many trial matters scheduled each day, and the court must prioritize efficiency to ensure that everyone on the daily list has their matter heard whenever possible, thereby avoiding potential adjournments and subsequent concerns about delay: see R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27. Balancing these competing interests can be challenging. But it must never be forgotten that the trial process is entirely alien to members of the public who are not legally trained, and they will require at least some assistance to ensure they receive a fair trial. Given the vital constitutional rights at the core of these proceedings, in my view, at a minimum, the presiding Justice of the Peace should inform a self-represented accused person of the following before he is arraigned:

• The accused person is presumed innocent;
• That he has the right to representation, either by a lawyer or a paralegal;
• The prosecutor must prove the essential elements of the offence(s) beyond a reasonable doubt;
• If the offence is properly characterized as a strict liability offence, if the Crown satisfies its burden that the actus reus was committed, the burden shifts to the accused to establish due diligence on a balance of probabilities (see R. v. Sault Ste. Marie);
• The prosecutor will present evidence during their case in chief, but the accused person may cross-examine any witnesses called by the prosecutor and challenge their credibility and/or reliability;
• The evidence of any witness, including a police officer’s, must be assessed by the court and will not merely be uncritically accepted;
• The accused person may testify in their own defence, and/or call relevant evidence that is capable of raising a reasonable doubt;
• The prosecutor and the accused person will be granted the opportunity to make submissions once the evidence has been concluded; and
• If the accused person has questions about any part of the trial process or what the prosecutor must prove to obtain a conviction, they may ask the court for further assistance.

[16] None of this was communicated to Mr. Greene prior to his trial commencing.

[17] In addition, I emphasize that the Justice provided Mr. Greene with no assistance in lawfully presenting his photographic evidence. Contrary to the Justice’s mid-trial ruling, it was not only permissible but entirely appropriate for Mr. Greene to show the photographs to the officer during cross-examination, giving the officer an opportunity to reconsider his position that there was no construction in the area at the time of the offence. He should have assisted Mr. Greene with this questioning. Furthermore, he was wrong to reject the introduction of the photographs when Mr. Greene testified. Even if the photographs were taken the day after the offence, if Mr. Greene had testified to their accuracy and to the presence at the time of the offence of the construction depicted in them, that would have been a sufficient basis for their authentication.

[18] Furthermore, there is no requirement that photographic evidence be “notarized” before it can be admitted in a POA proceeding when the photographs’ accuracy can be stipulated to by a live witness.[^1]

[19] Finally, I observe that sarcastic remarks uttered by a Justice to a legally untrained person who is presumed innocent are unbecoming and may bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Conclusion

[20] Mr. Greene was denied a fair trial because the Justice of the Peace did not provide him with sufficient assistance as a self-represented person. The reasons for conviction were insufficient and do not explain why Mr. Greene’s evidence was rejected, nor do they permit meaningful appellate review.

[21] As a Part I matter, this appeal comes to this court by way of s. 135(1) of the POA. As such, pursuant to s. 138(1) of the POA, this court has the power to “affirm, reverse or vary the decision appealed from or where, in the opinion of the court, it is necessary to do so to satisfy the ends of justice, direct a new trial.”

[22] I granted the appeal and vacated the conviction. Mr. Sawyer invited me to enter an acquittal as it would not be in the public interest to send the case back for a new trial in these circumstances. I want to thank Mr. Sawyer for the professionalism he demonstrated during the appeal hearing. He was a model of prosecutorial fairness and decency.

Released: May 14, 2026

Signed: Justice Brock Jones

[^1]: Mr. Greene attended his appeal hearing with the photographs in question. He kept them for over 18 years.