Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Act matters - ONCA

The applicant sought leave to appeal her convictions and sentences for driving without insurance and surrendering false evidence of insurance.

She had been convicted at an ex parte trial and fined $12,500, which she argued she could not afford.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the convictions, finding no viable due diligence defence.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal the sentence, noting the appeal judge failed to inquire into the applicant's financial circumstances or consider relief from the mandatory minimum fines under s. 59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The appellant was charged in separate informations with Criminal Code offences and Highway Traffic Act offences arising from the same events.

With the consent of the parties, the trial judge tried both sets of offences together and convicted the appellant of dangerous driving and failing to stop for police.

The appellant appealed, arguing the joint trial was a nullity.

The Court of Appeal held that while the joint trial was impermissible because the offences could not be joined in a single information, the error was a procedural irregularity.

Because the trial judge had jurisdiction over both classes of offences and the appellant suffered no prejudice, the curative provisos in the Criminal Code and Provincial Offences Act applied to save the convictions.

The appellant sought leave to challenge refusals to extend time to appeal multiple Part III provincial offence sentences for driving without insurance, relying on fresh evidence of serious mental illness and inability to pay.

The court held that it has jurisdiction under s. 131 of the Provincial Offences Act to hear, with leave, an appeal from a judgment denying an extension of time under s. 85 in a Part III proceeding.

Although the motion judge made no reversible error on the record then before him, the court admitted fresh psychiatric and financial evidence under the Palmer test and concluded that the interests of justice warranted sentence relief.

The total outstanding fines were reduced to $5000 with two years to pay.

The appellant, facing charges under the Provincial Offences Act for failing to comply with property standards orders under the Building Code Act, sought advanced funding to mount a constitutional challenge against the Building Code Act.

He argued the Act violated his section 7 Charter rights by threatening his shelter.

The application judge dismissed the request.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, finding the constitutional challenge lacked merit because section 7 does not protect property rights and the Building Code Act itself does not authorize the seizure of property.

The applicant was convicted of speeding after mailing a notice of intention to appear that was received after the 15-day period stipulated on the Offence Notice.

The applicant sought leave to appeal, arguing that under Rule 4 of Regulation 200, the calculation of time meant his notice was filed on time, and that the Offence Notice failed to comply with the Provincial Offences Act by not specifying the manner of delivery.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal on these two grounds, finding they raised questions of law of general application concerning the calculation of time limits and the sufficiency of prescribed forms.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice declining to entertain its s. 24(1) Charter application based on post-trial delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's exercise of discretion, as the appellant had already raised the s. 11(b) Charter issue in an appeal to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court under the Provincial Offences Act.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing his appeal of a provincial offence conviction for failing to remedy building code deficiencies.

The appeal judge had dismissed the appeal for failure to perfect due to missing transcripts.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal on two questions of law: whether an appeal can be dismissed for failure to perfect in circumstances not explicitly authorized by the Provincial Offences Act or its Rules, and whether such a dismissal can be appealed to the Court of Appeal under s. 131 of the Act.

Leave to appeal on factual grounds was denied.

The applicant, a self-represented taxi driver, was convicted of failing to stop at a red light and fined $350.

His appeal to the Ontario Court of Justice was dismissed.

He sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on three grounds: an unsworn interpreter, lack of disclosure, and the justice of the peace's failure to assist him as an unrepresented defendant.

The Court of Appeal refused leave on the interpreter issue but granted leave on the disclosure and duty to assist issues, finding conflicting authority on the obligations owed to self-represented defendants in provincial offences trials.

The appellant was convicted of two provincial offences after failing to appear at his trial dates.

Under s. 9.1(1) of the Provincial Offences Act, he was deemed not to dispute the charges.

He appealed, arguing that s. 9.1 violates s. 11(d) of the Charter by denying him a fair hearing.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 9.1 does not violate the Charter, as the notices provided clear warnings of the consequences of failing to appear, allowing the court to infer a valid waiver of s. 11(d) rights.

However, the appeal was allowed and new trials ordered because the City of Toronto conceded the appellant did not receive a fair hearing on his initial appeals.

The appellant appealed convictions for a 'no permit' offence and a 'failure to stop' offence.

At the provincial offences appeal, the prosecutor conceded the appellant had a valid permit and invited an acquittal, and also conceded the fine for failure to stop should be reduced.

The appeal judge peremptorily dismissed the appeal without giving effect to the concessions.

The Court of Appeal found this resulted in a miscarriage of justice, allowed the appeal, entered an acquittal on the 'no permit' charge, and reduced the penalty on the 'failure to stop' charge to a suspended sentence.

The applicant, who suffered from an undisclosed serious mental illness, accumulated over $20,000 in fines from four convictions for driving without insurance.

He applied for an extension of time and leave to appeal after his motions in the provincial offences appeal court were dismissed.

The Court of Appeal granted the application, finding an arguable issue regarding the due administration of justice and the public interest in determining whether accommodations should be made for individuals with significant personal disabilities who lack the ability to pay draconian fines.

The respondent was charged with driving while holding a hand-held wireless communication device after a police officer observed her holding a cellphone while stopped at a red light.

The respondent claimed she had only momentarily picked it up after it fell to the floor.

The trial court convicted her, but the appeal judge allowed her appeal, finding that 'holding' required sustained physical contact.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the ordinary meaning of 'holding' and the road safety objectives of the Highway Traffic Act dictate a complete prohibition on having a cellphone in one's hand while driving, regardless of the duration.

The respondent was convicted of driving while holding a hand-held wireless communication device contrary to s. 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal judge allowed the appeal, holding that the Crown must prove the cellphone was capable of receiving or transmitting.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the requirement for a device to be capable of receiving or transmitting applies only to prescribed devices, not to cellphones.

The applicant moved for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal, and for leave to appeal, from a provincial offences appeal decision upholding a careless driving conviction entered in absentia.

The proposed appeal raised a statutory interpretation issue under s. 9.1 of the Provincial Offences Act concerning whether a certificate of offence is complete and regular on its face where the handwritten offence description conflicts with the cited section number.

The court held that this issue raised a question of law alone of public importance, particularly given conflicting lower-court authority and the limited guidance provided by prior appellate authority on analogous but distinct defects.

Both the extension of time and leave to appeal were granted.

The applicant sought an extension of time and leave to appeal from a provincial offences appeal decision upholding a conviction for failing to stop at a red light.

The proposed appeal raised issues concerning an apparent discrepancy between the offence description and statutory section on the certificate of offence, and whether a subsequent change to the ticket constituted an improper out-of-court amendment made without the accused's knowledge.

The chambers judge held that the additional issue met the threshold under s. 139 of the Provincial Offences Act because both the public interest and the due administration of justice would be served by having it settled.

The extension of time and leave to appeal were granted.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision reversing a stay of proceedings.

The trial judge had stayed the proceedings for operating a public garage contrary to a municipal by-law, finding the prosecution was an abuse of process based on the by-law officer's evidence.

The appeal judge reversed the stay and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal under s. 131 of the Provincial Offences Act, finding the case raised significant questions of law regarding the laying of charges by enforcement officers that met the public interest requirement.

The Crown appealed the dismissal of a charge against the respondent for permitting the operation of a commercial motor vehicle not equipped with a working speed-limiting system.

The trial justice of the peace acquitted the respondent, finding the certificate of offence did not match the evidence and raising a reasonable doubt about the testing device.

The appeal judge dismissed the Crown's appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's further appeal.

Armstrong J.A. held the certificate of offence was defective for failing to reference the regulations.

Feldman J.A. dissented, finding the certificate sufficient and would have ordered a new trial.

Himel J. agreed with Feldman J.A. on the certificate's sufficiency but upheld the acquittal based on the trial justice's finding of reasonable doubt regarding the testing device.

The applicant sought leave to appeal several convictions under a city by-law.

Her previous motions to extend the time to appeal had been dismissed.

She brought another motion to set aside the convictions but failed to appear on time due to a traffic delay, resulting in the motion being dismissed.

The Court of Appeal accepted her explanation for the delay but dismissed the application for leave to appeal, noting the motion was well beyond the time for appealing, earlier attempts were unsuccessful, and there was no fresh evidence to warrant interference.

The appellant appealed his provincial offences convictions, including operating a motor vehicle without insurance, failing to wear a seatbelt, and operating without a validated permit.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence establishing that the appellant had automobile insurance at the time of the offence.

The conviction for operating without insurance was set aside and an acquittal substituted.

The appeal regarding the remaining charges was dismissed as the appellant provided no substantive defence or explanation for missing his first court appearance.

The applicant sought special leave to appeal from the dismissal of an application for an extension of time, which had been dismissed as abandoned.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that it did not meet the strict statutory test under section 131 of the Provincial Offences Act, as no issue essential to the public interest or the due administration of justice arose.

The Court noted that the appropriate remedy was an application to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court to reopen the application for the extension of time.