Handling Provincial Offence Cases in Ontario 2020

What’s inside

Table of contents

Table of content not available at this time


Index not available at this time

Release notes

Release notes not available at this time

Details and specs

Handling Provincial Offence Cases in Ontario 2020 provides systematic guidance for defending and prosecuting provincial offence cases in Ontario, ranging from driving offences to complex occupational health and safety violations and environmental protection infractions. Separate chapters cover mens rea offences, strict liability offenses, and absolute liability offenses including the scope of liability and corporate responsibility.

Legislation updates in this edition include:

  • Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33 amended by S.O. 2019, c. 15, Sched. 22; and 2019, c. 15, Sched. 33
  • Forms, O. Reg. 108/11 amended by O. Regs. 383/19; 1/20; and 19/20
  • Proceedings Commenced by Certificate of Offence, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 950 amended by O. Regs. 95/19; 236/19; 276/19; 358/19; 397/19; 459/19; and 43/20

Case law updates include:

  • Ontario (Labour) v. Nugent (Ont. C.A.) The appellate court held that, in a case where application of the particularly complex case exception had been sought by the Crown, how close the case had, or could have, been brought to the Jordan presumptive ceiling need not be referenced, rather, the court must assess the reasonableness of the Crowns plan and attempts to minimize delay based on the evidence and issues in the case.
  • R. v. Devatgar-Jafarpour (Ont. C.A.) The Court of Appeal found the Crown not to have breached its disclosure obligation by failing to decrypt a seized hard drive before producing or reducing its contents upon disclosing the hard drives seizure, the defence may request that it be decrypted before commencement of the trial.
  • Mississauga (City) v. Mohenu (Ont. C.A.) The defendant applied for an extension of time to perfect his motion for leave to appeal from a conviction of a 2014 by-law infraction, after having filed a notice of motion four years later and erroneously assuming there was no more to do. The Court of Appeal noted that the grounds of appeal had raised a question of fact regarding the width of a driveway, and neither a question of law nor a matter of general importance consequently, the appellate court found no basis to grant the extension on the potential merit ground.
  • Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Kapoor (Sask. C.A.) Although the rule of professional conduct requires the lawyer to inform the tribunal of any known binding authority deemed directly on-point with a relevant issue, the Court of Appeal affirmed discipline administered in an instance when the lawyer had refrained from alerting the court to a particular non-binding authority while not in direct contravention of the rule, the appellate court found the lawyer to have breached the overall duty of candour owed to the court.


Practice Area:
Criminal law & procedure


Publication Date:

Hardcover Specifications

Service #:

Sub #:


Shelf Space:


Anticip Unkeep Cost:

eBook Specifications