Court File and Parties

Court File No.: Toronto Date: October 24, 2016 Ontario Court of Justice

Between: Her Majesty the Queen (Respondent)

— And —

Lok-Yan Tang (Appellant)

Before: Justice Nakatsuru

Heard on: October 13, 2016

Reasons for Judgment released on: October 24, 2016

Counsel:

• G. Noel, counsel for the Respondent
• R. Lee, paralegal for the Appellant

Judgment

NAKATSURU J.:

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The ground of appeal is narrow and technical. The appellant was convicted of the offence of pass off roadway contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The justice of the peace resorted to the default proceedings under s. 9.1 of the Provincial Offences Act. The justice of the peace who reviewed the certificate of offence on the default proceeding found that the certificate of offence was complete and regular on its face and entered a conviction. The appellant argues that the justice of the peace erred and should have quashed the certificate because there was no indication whether the time of the offence which was said to be April 24, 2015, at 4:59 was in the "A.M." or the "P.M.". There is a box that the police officer should have filled with an "A" or a "P". It was not filled out but left empty.

[2] In my opinion, there is no merit to the appeal. One of the underlying requirements of a certificate of offence is that it provides notice so that the person who receives a certificate has a fair understanding of what the charge is so that he or she can properly choose how to respond. In order to constitute adequate notice, there must be information on the certificate of offence such as the who, what, and where of the offence: see R. v. Wilson, [2001] O.J. No. 4970 (C.J.); R. v. Khoshael, [2001] O.J. No. 2110 (C.J.).

[3] In this case, the certificate was properly filled out in its entirety except for the filling out of this one box. In my view, it is a far-fetched argument to suggest that the appellant was or could have reasonably been misled by this technical omission. There could only realistically be two possible times in which this offence could have been committed; a time in the late afternoon and a time in the very early morning. It would be readily apparent which was being alleged against the appellant. The omission was highly technical and could not have caused any prejudice. In my opinion, this certificate of offence was complete and regular on its face and there was no error in entering a conviction.

[4] The appeal is dismissed.

Released: October 24, 2016

Signed: "Justice S. Nakatsuru"