Ontario criminal | Motor Vehicles
SPEEDING
Offence notice failed to describe manner in which notice was to be delivered
Accused applied for leave to appeal judgment dismissing his appeal from conviction for speeding. Accused was served with offence form on January 30. Accused applicant’s notice was received on February 18, but conviction was entered by justice of peace on that date. On Feb. 28, 2014, accused received letter dated Feb. 24, 2013, which stated that his request for trial date was received after 15 day period had lapsed and conviction had been registered. Central issue concerned calculation of period of time for him to file his notice of intention to appear in court, before he could be “deemed not to dispute” charge. Accused argued his conviction was premature based on application of R. 4 of Rules of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) in Provincial Offences Proceedings (“Regulation 200”). Provincial Offences Appeal judge rejected applicability of R. 4. Judge found that person issued speeding ticket is strictly responsible for effecting delivery of “exercise of option” within 15 days. Leave to appeal granted; conviction stayed pending appeal. It was arguable that period of “at least” 15 days under s. 9(1)(a) of Provincial Offences Act (Ont.) should have excluded January 30, day of service, and February 14, 15th day. February 15, 16 and 17 should have also been excluded from calculation of “at least 15 days” from date of service. Accordingly, last day for delivery of Offence Notice was arguably Tuesday, February 18, day of accused’s conviction. It appeared therefore, that accused’s appeal on this ground may have had some merit. Offence Notice received by accused, which appeared to have been standard form, did not specify manner of delivery, other than to identify address of court office. Arguably, Offence Notice did not comply with statute because it failed to describe manner in which notice was to be delivered, if it was sent by mail. Appeal raised issues concerning application of Regulation 200 and calculation of time limits there under, and compliance of prescribed form with Act. Based on its plain and unambiguous meaning, R. 5 merely allowed individuals to safely assume receipt date of notices delivered by mail. It did not affect notice deadline: accused’s argument on R. 5 rejected.
R. v. Hicks (Oct. 29, 2014, Ont. C.A., G.R. Strathy C.J.O., In Chambers, File No. CA M44141) Leave to appeal from 115 W.C.B. (2d) 611 was allowed. 117 W.C.B. (2d) 284.
Offence notice failed to describe manner in which notice was to be delivered
Accused applied for leave to appeal judgment dismissing his appeal from conviction for speeding. Accused was served with offence form on January 30. Accused applicant’s notice was received on February 18, but conviction was entered by justice of peace on that date. On Feb. 28, 2014, accused received letter dated Feb. 24, 2013, which stated that his request for trial date was received after 15 day period had lapsed and conviction had been registered. Central issue concerned calculation of period of time for him to file his notice of intention to appear in court, before he could be “deemed not to dispute” charge. Accused argued his conviction was premature based on application of R. 4 of Rules of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) in Provincial Offences Proceedings (“Regulation 200”). Provincial Offences Appeal judge rejected applicability of R. 4. Judge found that person issued speeding ticket is strictly responsible for effecting delivery of “exercise of option” within 15 days. Leave to appeal granted; conviction stayed pending appeal. It was arguable that period of “at least” 15 days under s. 9(1)(a) of Provincial Offences Act (Ont.) should have excluded January 30, day of service, and February 14, 15th day. February 15, 16 and 17 should have also been excluded from calculation of “at least 15 days” from date of service. Accordingly, last day for delivery of Offence Notice was arguably Tuesday, February 18, day of accused’s conviction. It appeared therefore, that accused’s appeal on this ground may have had some merit. Offence Notice received by accused, which appeared to have been standard form, did not specify manner of delivery, other than to identify address of court office. Arguably, Offence Notice did not comply with statute because it failed to describe manner in which notice was to be delivered, if it was sent by mail. Appeal raised issues concerning application of Regulation 200 and calculation of time limits there under, and compliance of prescribed form with Act. Based on its plain and unambiguous meaning, R. 5 merely allowed individuals to safely assume receipt date of notices delivered by mail. It did not affect notice deadline: accused’s argument on R. 5 rejected.
R. v. Hicks (Oct. 29, 2014, Ont. C.A., G.R. Strathy C.J.O., In Chambers, File No. CA M44141) Leave to appeal from 115 W.C.B. (2d) 611 was allowed. 117 W.C.B. (2d) 284.
