Court File and Parties
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE DATE: 2022 01 04 COURT FILE No’s.: Halton 1711-999-00-844800F-00/ 00-873557X-00/00-1426189F-00
BETWEEN:
HALTON (Regional Municipality)
— AND —
VICTORIA SAUNDERS
Before: Justice Scott Latimer Heard on: December 10, 2021 Reasons for Judgment released on: January 4, 2022
Counsel: Christopher Zenko........................................................................ agent for the respondent Erli Bregu.......................................................................................... agent for Ms. Saunders
LATIMER J.:
Endorsement
[1] This appeal concerns the amount of information the state needs to provide with a traffic ticket. In 2020, Ms. Saunders was charged with speeding in February. And in May. And then again, in July. She paid her tickets only to later learn that, because of the quantity of demerit points she had accumulated, her license was now suspended.
[2] Ms. Saunders now appeals all three tickets on the basis that her decision to acknowledge responsibility was uninformed. In her affidavit, she describes difficulty contacting the Provincial Offences Court during the pandemic and her ultimate decision to simply pay the fines. When she did, she “was unaware that there were demerit points associated with any of these charges. As a result, my license is now under suspension due to these tickets”. [1]
[3] I have heard helpful submissions in this case from both parties. In my view, the issue boils down to whether the applicant’s waiver of her Charter rights by paying the tickets was fully informed. If not, then her decision to plead guilty by paying the fines was not a valid waiver of her constitutional right to a trial and a new trial order would be necessary. However, having considered the matter, I am satisfied that Ms. Saunders was sufficiently informed by the information on the ticket, as well as the information available to her by accessing the website (www.haltoncourtservices.ca) which was included on the back of the ticket. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons.
[4] First, I have reviewed the tickets received by Ms. Saunders. The back side of each ticket informed her of the available options: (1) plead guilty by paying the fine, (2) seek a resolution meeting with the prosecutor by mailing in a notice to the courthouse, or (3) attend in person to plead not guilty and have a trial. It appears from the court file that she sought option (2) on at least two of her tickets, before deciding to plead guilty by paying the fines. [2]
[5] The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Richard, [1996] 3 SCR 525, at para. 8, held that a procedural scheme that found individuals guilty of regulatory offences when they fail to respond within a given time period was constitutional, provided the individuals were “fully aware of the consequences of failing to act”. While Ms. Saunders’ circumstances are different, as she made the conscious decision to plead guilty by paying the fines, in my view the question remains the same: was she “fully aware of the consequences” when she paid those fines?
[6] I am satisfied that, in totality, Ms. Saunders was given sufficient information to become aware of the consequences, including the fact that she would accumulate demerit points for these speeding offences. Both the tickets received and the “Early Resolution Meeting Notice” provide a clear and direct online path to information regarding the implications of being found guilty of speeding. The OCJ POA guide, referred to in bold on the “Early Resolution Meeting Notice”, and publicly available on the Court’s website, includes the following easily accessible information:
“In deciding whether or not to obtain legal advice, especially if you plan to represent yourself, consider… the risk of a substantial fine, jail time or other penalty that would have significant personal impact (for example, driving demerit points, driver’s license suspension).
Demerit points: Driving-related demerit points are automatically imposed by law if you are found guilty of certain driving offences. The justice of the peace has no power to waive or reduce demerit points. For more information about demerit points, visit the Ministry of Transportation’s website: http://www.ontario.ca/driving-and-roads/understanding-demerit-points” [3]
[7] I conclude that information about demerit points was available to Ms. Saunders and, as such, with reasonable diligence she would have been fully informed about the demerit-related consequences of pleading guilty by paying these fines. On that basis alone, I would dismiss her appeals.
[8] Additionally, even if the demerit-related information was not made reasonably available to her, I am not satisfied that such information is necessary in order for an individual to be “fully aware of the consequences”.
[9] Demerit points are not part of the actual sentence imposed by a justice of the peace; they are an administrative sanction imposed by the Ministry of Transportation following a finding of guilt to certain HTA offences. Upon accumulating six points, a driver receives a warning letter encouraging better driving behaviour. At nine points, a second letter follows. It is only once a driver reaches fifteen demerit points that a real consequence occurs – their license is suspended for thirty days.
[10] Ms. Saunders’ license was not suspended because of one of these speeding convictions. It was not even suspended for all three of them. It was suspended because she accumulated fifteen demerit points, of which these three speeding convictions formed only a part.
[11] This consequence is entirely offender and context specific. It does not follow from any particular decision to plead guilty by paying a fine; it is the result of an accumulation of certain HTA infractions. In this regard, I agree and adopt the reasoning of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Miller v. British Columbia (2010), 2010 BCCA 39, 251 CCC (3d) 43, in particular at paragraph 17, where the Court states:
The addition of penalty points to a driving record is an administrative function in which the court takes no part. Points do not affect any right a driver has but, rather, may affect what is a driver’s privilege to hold a licence. Depending on the number of points that a driver may have previously accrued, or may subsequently have added to his driving record, the points added as a result of an undisputed ticket being issued may have no immediate effect and be of no consequence to the exercise of the privilege. What may, in a broad sense, be said to be “consequences” of a deemed guilty plea will differ from one driver to another depending on the driver’s record. These cannot, in my view, be consequences contemplated by what was said in Richard. They are not matters of which any given recipient of a ticket must be informed before his or her s. 11(d) Charter rights can be waived under s. 16(1) of the Offence Act. [emphasis added]
[12] In conclusion, I find that, while the province is not obligated to inform drivers of the existence of demerit points before they decide whether to plead guilty by paying the fines, this information was nevertheless made available to Ms. Saunders through receipt of the tickets and the court process. Any failure to be informed in this regard rests solely with her. For these reasons, her appeals are dismissed.
Released: January 4, 2022 Justice Scott Latimer
Notes
[1] On appeal, the parties agreed that it was not exclusively these demerit points that caused the suspension, but these points on top of others that she had previously received.
[2] There are copies of Early Resolution Meeting Notices for two of the speeding tickets in the court file. One was mailed to her, the other was given to her personally on February 12, 2020. Beyond identifying the date of her early resolution meeting with a prosecutor, these notices also refer to a “Guide for defendants available at www.ontariocourts.ca/OCJPOAGuide”. This website includes a helpful and detailed discussion of several topics, including demerit points.
[3] Similar information is easily located after accessing the www.haltoncourtservices.ca hyperlink.