The 2019 Annotated Ontario Provincial Offences Act - Print + ProView

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

New in this edition

Legislative Update:

Proceedings Commenced by Certificate of Offence R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 950 – amended by O. Regs. 443/18, 464/18; 476/18; and 503/18

Case Law Updates:

  • Weisdorf v. The City of Toronto (Ont. S.C.) – The court held the administrative penalty system for certain municipal parking offenses, rather than prosecution under Provincial Offences Act, not to have violated ss. 7 or 11 of the Charter, since by-law infractions generally do not warrant penal consequences. Further, the court found no arbitrary or unfair conduct or exercise of power serving some private purpose at the expense of the public interest. R v. Dennis (Ont. C.A.) – The appellate court vacated a costs award ordered against the counsel that had failed to give advance notice to the prosecutor of defence’s request for an adjournment – the exercise of the judge’s discretion was unreasonable and did not meet the threshold for an award of costs against counsel personally.
  • R. v. Kooner (B.C. Prov. Ct.) – The court found an account of every keystroke by individuals involved in the investigation need not have been disclosed to the defendant, in order to make full answer and defense to the charge of driving while prohibited. The court however held the defendant to be entitled to all broadcast communications relevant to the investigation and stop of the vehicle, including communications from dispatch to any of the officers, and all communications between the officers themselves.
  • Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks) v. Henry of Pelham Inc. (Ont. C.A.) – The court summarized the guiding principles of relief against minimum fine provision under s. 59(2): (1) The minimum fines establish floors that apply regardless of ordinary sentencing principles; (2) Section 59(2) authorizes trial judges to provide relief from minimum fines in exceptional circumstances; (3) Section 59(2) applies exceptionally; (4) Undue oppressiveness of the minimum fine will depend on consideration of personal hardship; (5) The alignment of the minimum fine with the interests of justice mandates consideration of the community protected by relevant legislation; and (6) Discretion under s.59(2) cannot be exercised arbitrarily.
  • York (Regional Municipality) v. McGuigan (Ont. C.A.) – The appellate court held the trial justice to have ordered properly the disclosure of the user manual’s testing and operating procedures respecting the device used to measure the defendant’s speed. Where the prosecutor relies on a speed measuring device, it must comply with a request to disclose testing and operating procedures. The defendant need not bring an application for a court order to obtain this disclosure, since it constitutes a first-party, rather than a third-party, disclosure.

The ProView eBook version is available through your web browser, or can be downloaded to your computer, tablet, or smartphone. See all available titles at


Practice Area:
Criminal Law and Procedure


Publication Date:

Hardcover Specifications

Service #:

Sub #:


Shelf Space:


Anticip Unkeep Cost:

eBook Specifications