Torok v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
CITATION: Torok v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, 2015 ONSC 3100
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 191/13 DATE: 20150513
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
CORBETT, LEDERER AND A. J. GOODMAN JJ.
BETWEEN:
RICHARD TOROK
Applicant
– and –
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO
Respondent
In Person
Victoria Kondo, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: May 13, 2015
D. L. CORBETT J. (ORALLY)
[1] The applicant was charged with speeding under the Highway Traffic Act. The alleged offence occurred in Toronto on June 18, 2012. The applicant pleaded not guilty and requested a trial. On January 30, 2013, a Notice of Trial was issued for a trial date of April 19, 2013. The applicant attended the trial and raised a preliminary objection that the proceedings against him were out of time pursuant to subsection 76(1) of the Provincial Offences Act. Subsection 76(1) provides:
A proceeding shall not be commenced after the expiration of any limitation period prescribed by or under any Act for the offence or, where no limitation period is prescribed, after six months after the date on which the offence was, or is alleged to have been, committed.
[2] The applicant argues that the word “proceeding” is not defined in the Provincial Offences Act or in any other relevant statute. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “proceeding” as:
Any action, hearing, investigation, inquest or inquiry … in which … testimony can be compelled to be given.
[3] On this basis, the applicant argues that “proceeding” in the Provincial Offences Act means “trial” with the result that all trials in the Provincial Offences Court must take place within six months of the date of the alleged offence occurring.
[4] The Crown does not address the applicant’s substantive argument in its factum. Rather, it argues that this issue could only be pursued by appeal from the Provincial Offences Court rather than by way of extraordinary equitable relief before this Court.
[5] We agree with the Crown, and in any event see no merit whatsoever in the applicant’s substantive argument.
A. Prerogative Relief Not Available
[6] The jurisprudence is clear that, absent special circumstances, interlocutory rulings in ongoing criminal or Provincial Offences Act proceedings should only be challenged by way of appeal after trial. (See R. v. Felderhoff, [2002] O.J. No. 4103 (Sup. Ct.); R. v. Johnson, 1991 7174 (ON CA), [1991] O.J. No. 481 (ONCA); R. v. Arcand, 2004 46648 (ON CA), [2004] O.J. No. 5017 (ONCA) and R. v. 1353837 Ontario Inc., 2005 4189 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. No. 656 (ONCA)).
[7] As stated by Rosenberg J.A. in the Court of Appeal, in R. v. Johnson, para. 7:
These cases dictate that issues, including those with a constitutional dimension which arise in the context of a criminal prosecution should routinely be raised and resolved within the confines of the established criminal process which provides for a preliminary inquiry (in some cases), a trial, and a full appeal on the record after that trial. Those same cases identify the policy concerns which underline the predilection against resort to the Superior Court for relief during criminal proceedings. Such applications can result in delay, the fragmentation of the criminal process, the determination of issues based on an inadequate record, and the expenditure of judicial time and effort on issues which may not have arisen had the process been left to run its normal course. The effective and efficient operation of our criminal justice system is not served by interlocutory challenges to rulings made during the process or by applications for rulings concerning issues which it is anticipated will arise at some point in the process.
[8] The proper course for the applicant was an appeal to a Provincial Judge in the Ontario Court of Justice (See: Provincial Offences Act s. 135). Further, had this been a proper case for certiorari, which it is not, the proper venue would have been a single justice of the Superior Court of Justice, not a panel of the Divisional Court. (See: Subsections 140(1) and (4) of the Provincial Offences Act).
[9] We do not accept that prerogative relief was available here under subsection 140(1) of the Provincial Offences Act. There was no procedural unfairness in relation to the impugned ruling by the Justice of the Peace. The Justice of the Peace found that the proceedings were commenced within four days of the offence and thus were brought within the time limits prescribed by the Provincial Offences Act. The Justice of the Peace heard the applicant’s argument, decided the issue raised by the applicant and gave sufficient reasons for the decision.
B. “Proceeding” Means the Entire Matter Not Just the Trial
[10] Further, and in any event, the word “proceeding” in the context of subsection 76(1) of the Provincial Offences Act, does not have the limited meaning urged by the applicant. One need look no further than subsection 3(1) of the Provincial Offences Act to understand when a “proceeding” commences. It is “commenced” by “laying an information” or “by filing a Certificate of Offence”.
[11] “Proceeding” in the context of limitations law, means the entire case from the legal process that begins the case through to final disposition. The “commencement” of a proceeding is the issuance of process, in this case, by the police officer filing the Certificate of Offence. In this case, the Certificate of Offence was served on the date of the offence and filed within seven days thereafter, well within the six month limitation period. There is no limitations issue in this case and the Provincial Offences Court was correct to dismiss the applicant’s preliminary motion.
[12] The application is dismissed.
COSTS
[13] I have endorsed the back of the Application Record, “Application is dismissed for reasons given orally by D.L. Corbett J. No costs.”
___________________________ D. L. CORBETT J.
LEDERER J.
- J. GOODMAN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 13, 2015
Date of Release: May 15, 2015
CITATION: Torok v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, 2015 ONSC 3100
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 191/13 DATE: 20150513
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
CORBETT, LEDERER AND
A. J. GOODMAN JJ.
BETWEEN:
RICHARD TOROK
Applicant
– and –
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
D. L. CORBETT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 13, 2015
Date of Release: May 15, 2015