The 2019-2020 Annotated Contraventions Act is a must-have reference to the 3,000 federal statutory and regulatory offences.
A must-have reference to the 3,000 federal statutory and regulatory offences that have been designated as contraventions under the contraventions legislation, The 2019-2020 Annotated Contraventions Act includes the full text of the Contraventions Act and Regulations, including the short-form descriptions of scheduled offences. The author provides comprehensive annotations, including skillfully prepared commentary, applicable case law and cross references to related Criminal Code sections. It also includes a systematic examination of companion amendments to federal statutes such as the Canada Evidence Act, Criminal Code, and the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
New in this edition
- Application of Provincial Laws Regulations, SOR/96-312 – amended by SOR/2018-286, ss. 1-10
- Contraventions Regulations, SOR/96-313 – amended by S.C. 2018, c. 9, s. 77(3)(d); SOR/2018-286, ss. 11-15 [s. 13 to come into force April 1, 2019.]
- Offence Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 338 – amended by S.B.C. 2018, c. 36, s. 7 [Not in force] and S.B.C. 2018, c. 49, s. 90 (Sched. 2, item 12) [Not in force]
- Victims of Crime Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 478 – amended by B.C. Reg. 99/2018 (Sched. 1), s. 10
- Criminal Code (Selected Forms) – amended by S.C. 2018, c. 21
- Summary Proceedings Act, R.S. N.S. 1989, c. 450 – amended by S.N.S. 2018, c. 3, s. 71; S.N.S. 2018, c. 22, s. 16; and S.N.S. 2018, c. 29, ss. 375-378 [Not in force]
- Summary Proceedings Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. S-9 – amended by S.P.E.I. 2018, c. 52, ss. 75, 82 [Not in force]
- Code of Penal Procedure, C.Q.L.R., c. C-25.1 – amended byS.Q. 2018, c. 26
Case Law Updates:
- 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.
- 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. Gainda (Ont. C.J.) – The court deemed the incorrect recording of the defendant’s address on a certificate of offence not to have detracted from its completeness. In this instance, the defendant suffered no prejudice from this error, since it had no impact on his ability to make informed decision on how to respond to charge.
- R. v. Romero (Ont. C.J.) – On the charge of holding a handheld communication device while driving, the court held the particular timing of the offence was held not to be not an essential element for the certificate of the offence. On the witness stand, the officer testified to the time being 17 minutes different from time he had written on the ticket – such a difference in time reflected no flaw in the officer’s vision or the officer’s observations of the offence having been committed, and it did not materially change or influence the preparation of a defence to this charge.
- Chow v. York (Regional Municipality) (Ont. C.J.) – According to the court, the Justice of the Peace had made no error in finding the certificate of offence was complete and regular on its face, even though the certificate had failed to specify whether the offence had taken place at 11:12 a.m. or p.m. The time of the offence was not an essential element, and it was not relevant to the defendant’s decision whether to contest the related allegation.