Ontario criminal | Appeal
RIGHT OF APPEAL
Intention of statute was to prevent persons from using disabled persons permits
Accused applied for leave to appeal decision which dismissed appeal of his conviction for displaying disabled person permit not in accordance with regulations, contrary to s. 27(1)(b) of Highway Traffic Act (Ont.). Parking officer saw vehicle parked in no parking zone, with disabled person parking permit displayed. Officer saw accused enter vehicle, inspected permit, and discovered that it was issued to accused’s mother, who was not present or in area at time. Accused argued that Crown had to prove that he was person who placed or “displayed” permit in car window, and that it was insufficient to prove only that he returned to and entered vehicle which had disabled permit on dash. Crown conceded that accused raised question of law, but argued that it was neither in public interest nor for due administration of justice that leave be granted. Application dismissed. While decided cases in Ontario Court of Justice did not deal directly with point raised by accused, they did speak to requirements for conviction and there was no conflict in decisions for court to resolve. Word “display” was capable of more than just its active meaning. As intention of statute was to prevent persons other than those to whom permits were issued from using permits, interpreting statute to require officer to actually see violator place permit in window would have defeated this intention. It was neither essential in public interest nor necessary for due administration of justice to grant leave to appeal on facts.
R. v. Ferranti (Sep. 27, 2013, Ont. C.A., MacFarland J.A., In Chambers, File No. CA M42631) 109 W.C.B. (2d) 398.
Intention of statute was to prevent persons from using disabled persons permits
Accused applied for leave to appeal decision which dismissed appeal of his conviction for displaying disabled person permit not in accordance with regulations, contrary to s. 27(1)(b) of Highway Traffic Act (Ont.). Parking officer saw vehicle parked in no parking zone, with disabled person parking permit displayed. Officer saw accused enter vehicle, inspected permit, and discovered that it was issued to accused’s mother, who was not present or in area at time. Accused argued that Crown had to prove that he was person who placed or “displayed” permit in car window, and that it was insufficient to prove only that he returned to and entered vehicle which had disabled permit on dash. Crown conceded that accused raised question of law, but argued that it was neither in public interest nor for due administration of justice that leave be granted. Application dismissed. While decided cases in Ontario Court of Justice did not deal directly with point raised by accused, they did speak to requirements for conviction and there was no conflict in decisions for court to resolve. Word “display” was capable of more than just its active meaning. As intention of statute was to prevent persons other than those to whom permits were issued from using permits, interpreting statute to require officer to actually see violator place permit in window would have defeated this intention. It was neither essential in public interest nor necessary for due administration of justice to grant leave to appeal on facts.
R. v. Ferranti (Sep. 27, 2013, Ont. C.A., MacFarland J.A., In Chambers, File No. CA M42631) 109 W.C.B. (2d) 398.
