The 2020 Annotated Ontario Provincial Offences Act offers comprehensive and up-to-date information providing everything a practitioner needs to confidently handle proceedings under an Ontario statute from beginning to end.
- Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33 as amended by S.O. 2019, c. 15, Sched. 22, s. 101 [not in force]; Sched. 33
- Proceedings Commenced by Certificate of Offence, R.R.O. 1990 Reg. 950 as amended by 236/19; 276/19; 358/19; 397/19; 459/19
- Forms O. Reg. 108/11 as amended by CTR 09 OC 19 1; 383/19; 1/20
- Red Light Camera System Evidence, O. Reg. 277/99 as amended by 399/19
Case law updates
- Ontario (Labour) v. Nugent, 2019 ONCA 999, 2019 CarswellOnt 20589,  O.J. 6425: In this case, where there were concurrent charges under the Criminal Code and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, it was held that in order to take advantage of the particularly complex case exception, Jordan requires the Crown to develop and follow a plan to minimize the delay caused by the complexity. If the particularly complex case exception is found to apply, and the further finding is made that the Crown did have and follow a plan to minimize delay, the delay is justified and s.11(b) has not been breached. The reasonableness of a plan to address a particularly complex case is assessed having regard to the nature of the evidence and the issues in the case. The Crown is not required to show that the steps it took were ultimately successful just that it took reasonable steps.
- R. v. Devatgar-Jafarpour, 2019 ONCA 353,  O.J. 2264: The Crown did not breach its disclosure obligation by failing to decrypt the hard drive and producing or reviewing its contents. The Crown satisfied its disclosure obligation by disclosing the fact that the police had seized the hard drive. It was open to the defence to have requested that the hard drive be decrypted before the trial commenced.
- Mississauga (City) v. Mohenu, 2019 ONCA 318,  O.J. 2293: The defendant applied for an extension of time to perfect his motion for leave to appeal. The conviction was in 2014 for a by-law infraction. He had had one appeal, which was dismissed by the Ontario Court of Justice. The notice of motion for leave was filed in February 2018. The defendant stated that he had not understood he had more to do and was waiting to hear from the court. However, the grounds of appeal raised a question of fact was the driveway too wide. That was not a question of law or a matter of general importance. On the potential merit ground, there was, therefore, no basis to grant an extension of time.
- Ontario (Labour) v. Sudbury (City), 2019 ONCA 854,  O.J. 5475: A question of law alone is engaged by the Crowns contention that the courts below erred by importing into the definition of employer an element regarding the degree of control that Sudbury exercised over the project. The interpretation of employer in the Occupational Health and Safety Act adopted by the courts below may, at the end of the day, be free from legal error. However, a large number of municipal infrastructure projects are undertaken in the province each year in which the municipality contracts the work out to a third party. Whether a municipality may or may not fall within the definition of employer in respect of such projects by reason of the degree of control it exercises over the project engages a question of law alone of interest to the public at large.