R. v. Cott

R. v. Cott

2019 ONCJ 587
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice Patrice F. Band | August 21, 2019

Background

In August 2016, Katherine Cott was charged under section 144 of the Highway Traffic Act for failing to yield to a pedestrian. Her car had struck the pedestrian. What should have been a straightforward traffic case turned into a procedural circus spanning three years, multiple adjournments, and three different prosecutors who took completely different positions on the same disclosure issue.

The defence wanted contact information for three civilian witnesses, including an independent pedestrian who apparently had evidence helpful to Cott's case. The prosecutor's office ignored written disclosure requests for months, then ambushed the defence with case law during oral argument, leading to a confusing series of motions before different justices. Eventually, the City simply gave up and dismissed the charge rather than comply with a disclosure order.

Issues

1. Did the respondent improperly attempt to relitigate the same disclosure issue before different justices?
2. Whether Justice Kirke properly considered and dismissed the Crown's abuse of process argument?

The Relitigation Argument

The Crown argued that Cott's Charter application seeking witness contact information was really just an attempt to relitigate an adjournment motion that had already been denied by Justice Bubrin. Justice Band firmly rejected this argument, finding that the May 23rd motion was genuinely seeking an adjournment due to incomplete disclosure, while the July 28th Charter application was a completely different remedy seeking a stay of proceedings.

The court was particularly critical of the prosecution's handling of the case. Three different prosecutors took inconsistent positions, none of them had transcripts of the previous proceedings, and the office failed to respond to written disclosure requests in the first place. As Justice Band noted, "much of the confusion arose because the contentious aspects of the matter were allowed to evolve in the hands of three different Prosecutors, two of whom made inconsistent submissions."

Disclosure and Communication Failures

Justice Band used this case as a teaching moment about proper case management and communication. The prosecutor's office should have responded to the written disclosure requests with their position and legal reasoning, rather than ambushing the defence with the Mearow case during oral argument. The court emphasized that disclosure applications should be heard by the trial justice, and that proper arraignment and case management could have avoided much of the confusion.

The decision also highlights the importance of judicial pre-trial conferences (JPTs) for resolving contentious pre-trial issues efficiently, rather than allowing matters to spiral into multiple contested hearings before different justices.

Key Takeaway

Proper communication and case management prevent procedural disasters that waste everyone's time and resources.

Self-represented defendants should demand timely responses to disclosure requests and shouldn't hesitate to seek appropriate remedies when the Crown fails to communicate their position clearly and in advance.