Handling Provincial Offence Cases in Ontario 2018 provides systematic guidance for defending and prosecuting provincial offence cases in Ontario.
Handling Provincial Offence Cases in Ontario 2018 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 offences, and absolute liability offences including the scope of liability and corporate responsibility.
New in this edition
- The Stronger, Fairer Ontario Act (Budget Measures) 2017 (Bill 177) was given Royal Assent on 14 December 2017. This legislation, S.O. 2017, c.34, contains Schedule 35, which makes numerous substantive changes to the Provincial Offences Act. One of the changes is an amendment to the definition of “prosecutor” in s.1(1), which includes persons acting on behalf of a municipality under a transfer agreement.
Case law updates:
- York (Regional Municipality) v. Tomovski, 2018 ONCA 57 [(In Chambers)] – Leave to appeal was refused where the “decision” of the provincial court appeal judge was that the stay of proceedings should be set aside because there was no breach of s.11(b) of the Charter of Rights. The Municipality’s proposed appeal sought an advisory opinion of the Court of Appeal that was detached from the underlying facts.
- R. v. Cvokic, 2017 ONCJ 517 – As per s.21(1) of the Provincial Offences Act, the exception to obtain the Attorney General’s consent to prosecute is triggered when the Part I or II certificates have been filed. In the defendant’s case, the Part I certificate was not filed so there was no required Attorney General consent. In the result, the defendant’s Part III charge was valid.
- R. v. Boukaras, 2017 ONCJ 608 – The justice of the peace committed reversible legal error in dismissing the charge because the officer had no independent recollection of the events that brought the defendant to court. The officer’s notes were properly admitted into evidence as record of his past recollection of the incident that brought the defendant to court.
- Oshawa (City) v. 536813 Ontario Ltd., 2017 ONCJ 836 – The trial Justice erred in ordering costs against the “Prosecution”, the “City of Oshawa” and the “Prosecutor, the City of Oshawa” because the evidentiary record did not support a finding that the conduct of the prosecutors constituted “a marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected of the prosecution” or that the prosecution was directed by the municipality for self-interest and financial gain.
- Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v. Belle-Pak Packaging Inc., 2017 ONCJ 811 – With s.11(b) of the Charter applying to both regulatory and Criminal Code offences, the net delay in the instant case was just under 26 months, which was well over the 18-month ceiling for provincial courts that applies to provincial offences court proceedings. The delay resulted from the Crown’s inaccurate assessment of time required for the case denying the defendant of the constitutional right to have a trial in a timely fashion.