Ruling
Ontario Court of Justice
His Majesty the King v. Muhammad Butt
Court File No. 4860 999 00 2867309F-00
Date: February 10, 2025
Before Justice of the Peace R. Scarpato
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Appearances
- I. Silvanovich, Municipal Prosecutor
- V. Manoukian, Agent for the Defendant
This ruling concerns a motion brought by the defence paralegal, Mr. Manoukian, on behalf of his client, Muhammad Butt, charged with the offence of red light, driver fail to stop, contrary to section 144(18) of the Highway Traffic Act.
Mr. Manoukian provided the Court with several cases, including R. v. Bertolucci, R. v. Wu, R. v. Woo, R. v. Young, [1995] O.J. No. 4283 C.C.C., and R. v. Wilson, [2001] O.J. No. 4907 — both Provincial Offences Act appeal court decisions.
Relying on these cases, Mr. Manoukian submitted that the Part I certificate of offence should be quashed as the informant’s name is not included on the certificate. He argued that Mr. Butt would be prejudiced if an amendment were granted to include this detail. He further submitted that the cases of Massicotte and Pine deal with informations and summonses, which is not the case here.
Mr. Silvanovich, for the prosecution, submitted that there is some information on the certificate as to who the informant is. It reads, “PC 10429.” Although no specific name is noted, the presence of “PC 10429” means the certificate can be amended. He pointed out that the officer's signature, along with all other material particulars regarding the offence, are provided and clear.
Pursuant to subsection 34(1) of the Provincial Offences Act:
The Court has the discretion at any stage of proceedings to amend the information or certificate where it appears that the information or certificate fails to state or states defectively anything that is essential to charge the offence; does not negative an exception that should be negatived; or is in any way defective in form or substance. It is also open to the court to amend the information or certificate during the course of the trial if the subject matter of the proposed amendment has been disclosed by the evidence.
The scope of these remedial amendment provisions in subsection 34(1) and (2) is therefore quite broad. Conversely, the power to quash under section 36 of the Provincial Offences Act is narrow.
As stated in R. v. Massicotte, 2017 ONSC 5837, a recent and binding Superior Court of Justice decision, at paragraph 10:
An over-arching principle informs the proper determination of any challenge to the validity of a Provincial Offences Act information: substance matters more than form.
In York v. Winlow, 2009 ONCA 643 at para. 9, the Ontario Court of Appeal observed that:
Section 34 of the POA authorizes the amendment of an information or certificate of offence. The amendment power is broad, reflecting the legislative intent that POA charges be decided on their merits and not on technical grounds or procedural irregularities.
The Court of Appeal recently affirmed this approach in York (Regional Municipality) v. Wadood, 2017 ONCA 45, at para. 14:
An important goal of the Provincial Offences Act is that cases be decided on their merits. A corollary to that goal is that a minor defect in a proceeding, not prejudicing a defendant, should not be given effect to.
At paragraph 49, the Court of Appeal stated:
The Act is intended to permit judges to decide cases on their merits, to deal efficiently and inexpensively with the province’s large volume of minor regulatory offences and to avoid having proceedings invalidated because of technical objections or irregularities having no prejudicial impact on a defendant.
The overarching principle has long been well established:
The overall philosophy is to ensure that technical objections do not impede an impartial verdict on the merits.
At paragraph 11, the court reaffirmed this in Regional Municipality of York v. Lorman, 2015 ONSC 6486, where at para. 8 Justice Edwards wrote:
The spirit and intent of Provincial Offences Act, and prosecutions conducted thereunder, is to ensure that technical objections do not impede a verdict on the merits.
A footnote clarifies:
While many of the cases cited arose in the context of Part I proceedings under the Provincial Offences Act, and the instant case is a Part III proceeding initiated by an information rather than by certificate of offence, this distinction is immaterial to the present analysis. The jurisdiction of a Justice of the Peace to deal with defects on the face of the charging document once the defendant is before the court for adjudication of the allegations is, in both situations, governed by section 36 of the Provincial Offences Act (Massicotte).
At paragraph 12, the Court further stated:
There is nothing new or controversial about this principle. Almost 40 years ago, in Sault Ste. Marie, the Supreme Court stated, “We must look for substance and not petty formalities.” While the Supreme Court was concerned in Sault Ste. Marie with a Criminal Code charging document, its dictum governs the proper approach to Provincial Offences Act information with at least equal force.
The Provincial Offences Act empowers a Justice of the Peace to quash an information, but only in very limited circumstances, conferred by section 36, which provides:
Which refers to motion to quash information or certificate an objection to an information or certificate for a defect apparent on its face, shall be taken by motion to quash the information or certificate before the defendant has pleaded, and thereafter only by leave of the court.
Subsection (2) reads:
The Court shall not quash an information or certificate unless an amendment or particular under section 33, 34 or 35 would fail to satisfy the ends of justice.
This applies both to certificates and to informations.
There is also the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Davis, 2017 ONCA 245. In that case, the defendant appealed being deemed not to dispute due to the certificate of offence initially not including the municipality. The officer added the municipality name after giving the defendant's offence notice but before filing the certificate with the court. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.
While the analysis focused on section 90 of the POA, it differs from the present case but reinforces the principle articulated in Massicotte that minor errors do not justify quashing.
At paragraph 50, the court said:
In all these examples and many other examples of minor errors or omissions on certificates of offence, the defendant charged would not be misled. Quashing the certificate of offence because of minor errors that cause no prejudice would not promote the fair administration of justice in the provincial court.
In this case, the certificate provides some information about the informant. It reads “PC 10429.” The officer's signature is clearly there along with all other particulars requisite to the charge, enabling the accused to make a full answer and defence.
For these reasons, I am not prepared to quash the certificate.
MS. RODRIGUES: Thank you, Your Worship.
THE COURT: You're welcome. Thank you.
MR. MANOUKIAN: Thank you, Your Worship.
...PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED