Handling Provincial Offence Cases in Ontario 2019 provides systematic guidance for defending and prosecuting provincial offence cases in Ontario.
Handling Provincial Offence Cases in Ontario 2019 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
- Forms, O. Reg. 108/11 – amended by O. Reg. 236/18
Case Law Update:
- 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.
- R v. Dennis (Ont. C.A.) – The appellate court vacated a costs award ordered against the counsel who 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.
- Ontario (Labour) v. New Mex Canada Inc. (Ont. C.A.). – The appellate court found both the fine and the jail term to reflect moral blameworthiness, the appropriateness of which type of punishment to impose must depend on the degree of moral blameworthiness underlying the offence, rather than the degree of financial hardship each type might cause.
- 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.
- 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 defence 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.