Court File and Parties
Ontario Court of Justice
Between:
Her Majesty the Queen Respondent
— And —
Alyssa Ferreira Applicant
Before: Justice Douglas B. Maund
Heard on: May 16, 2019
Reasons for Judgment released on: May 30, 2019
Counsel
Mr. A. Gerges — counsel for the Applicant
Ms. A. Heath — counsel for the Respondent
Reasons for Judgment
[1] Introduction
The Applicant seeks an order that the trial venue of this matter be transferred from the Ontario Court of Justice at Orangeville to the Davis Courthouse in Brampton pursuant to Section 599 of the Criminal Code of Canada. This Motion was argued by counsel on May 16, 2019 with these Reasons to follow.
The Facts
[2] The Charges
The Applicant was charged with five criminal charges including impaired operation and breach of probation as a result of an incident on March 17, 2018 in the Town of Caledon. There are also three Provincial Offences charges from the same occurrence.
[3] Location of the Incident
The incident which gave rise to the charges was a traffic stop by the Caledon O.P.P. on King Street near Humber Station Road in the Town of Caledon. That location is 33 kilometers south of the Orangeville Courthouse and 34 kilometers north of the Brampton Courthouse. According to Google Maps, the Orangeville Courthouse is about five minutes closer to that location in terms of travel time. This is no doubt due to less urban density to the north.
[4] Applicant's Circumstances
No evidence by way of affidavit was filed on this motion. However, counsel indicated in argument that his client has limited financial resources and currently is on Ontario Works. Ms. Ferreira's surety resides in Brampton and, with her approval, the Applicant lives both with her surety in Brampton and in Georgetown with a friend. She is able to obtain transportation with the assistance of this friend to travel back and forth between Brampton and Georgetown as she requires.
[5] Transportation Issues
On the prior court appearance on this motion, Ms. Ferreira was driven to court by her friend. However, counsel indicates that this is not convenient for her to accommodate the Applicant with rides on most weekdays. Counsel also advised that access by the accused to alternate transportation from family and other friends is limited. Public transportation from Brampton or Georgetown to Orangeville is not at convenient times.
[6] Applicant's Attendance at Court
I reminded counsel that court attendances by his client, who has counsel, were not required or could be excused apart from the two days to be scheduled for trial. Mr. Gerges indicated that the accused wished to attend and takes an active interest in all of her court proceedings.
Discussion
[7] Jurisdiction and Authority
The Applicant conceded at the outset of argument that this court has jurisdiction to try these alleged offences anywhere within the Province of Ontario. And further, that the Regional Senior Justice for Central West Region has authority to schedule and transfer trials within this Region pursuant to Sections 36 and 75 of the Courts of Justice Act. My authority to hear this Application on the merits was delegated to me specifically by Regional Senior Justice Nicklas.
[8] Established Regional Policy
It was not clear at the commencement of this motion whether the Applicant sought to challenge the long established practice, begun by Regional Senior Justice Zuraw in 1997, of transferring O.P.P. criminal charges from Caledon to the Ontario Court of Justice at Orangeville. This policy was recently reiterated by Regional Senior Justice Nicklas in a local practice memorandum. It became apparent during argument that counsel did not seek to challenge this policy or its statutory authority under the Courts of Justice Act. Indeed, Mr. Gerges conceded that there were merits for such a policy for Caledon which is located in the very busy jurisdiction of Peel Region. Trial scheduling issues in Brampton have been recognized for many years.
[9] Historical Context of the Policy
The decision taken in 1997 by Regional Senior Justice Anton Zuraw to transfer the Caledon criminal trials to the Orangeville Courthouse was made after extensive community consultation with all justice stakeholders including the bar and Office of the Crown, the police and the broader community. The difficulties in the trial scheduling of Caledon matters in Brampton were particularly acute at that time. The Orangeville facility is located in proximity to Caledon and could accommodate the scheduling of Caledon charges.
[10] Success of the Policy
In the decades since this policy was implemented, it has been proven successful. Caledon criminal cases have been efficiently case managed on a model consistent with the needs of a small town/rural community. And most importantly, apart from some initial resourcing issues in the years after this change, there have been few Section 11(b) Charter delay issues litigated before the Ontario Court of Justice at Orangeville. To the present day, the Orangeville Courts have been able to accommodate timely access to justice of Caledon matters in a way that the badly overburdened Court in Brampton simply cannot.
[11] Application of Section 599 of the Criminal Code
Apart from the direction of court policy, holding the trial of the case before me in Orangeville does not offend the general principle that trials should be held in the geographic location of the alleged offence. The location of this incident is roughly half way between the two courthouses. The Orangeville Courthouse is located several kilometers outside of the Peel boundary. In my view, the fact that it is located within the County of Dufferin makes no practical difference in terms of venue. An Orangeville venue is in fact more convenient location for Caledon charges. Within the meaning of Section 599(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, the policy direction to transfer Caledon criminal trials to the Orangeville Courthouse is "expedient to the ends of justice."
Conclusion
[12] Applicant's Inconvenience
The Applicant seeks to transfer her trial back to Brampton which is the regional municipality in which the alleged offence took place. I am not persuaded by the evidence indicated during oral argument, that travel to Orangeville by the accused will be onerous, inconvenient or prejudicial. I note that Ms. Ferreira resides in Georgetown as well as Brampton and would sustain some level of inconvenience to attend her trial in either Court location. In any event, there is no principle of which I am aware which entitles an accused to a place of trial closest to her place of residence.
[13] Administrative Efficiency
Finally, I note that Caledon Police as well as the Crown Attorneys responsible for prosecuting this case and administration and Caledon court staff operate entirely out of the Orangeville Courthouse. Transferring witnesses and staff to the Brampton Courthouse for this trial is not consistent with the effective and efficient administration of justice.
[14] Order
Accordingly, the trial of this matter shall proceed at Orangeville. A trial date shall be set forthwith on the next court appearance.
Released: Dated at the Town of Orangeville, this 30th day of May, 2019
Justice Douglas B. Maund