R v Dolman

Her Majesty the Queen v. Robert Dolman

Information No. 08-6138
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice K.G. Lenz | April 26, 2010

Background

Robert Dolman was charged with stunt driving for going 107 km/h in a 50 km/h zone on King George Road on June 2, 2008. After numerous adjournments over nearly a year, his trial was finally set for June 23, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. Both Dolman and his agent showed up ready to proceed — but the Brantford Police had a problem.

The peace officer who was supposed to testify got dispatched to a vehicle-bicycle accident just before 9:00 a.m. The Crown asked for an adjournment, but the justice of the peace refused and dismissed the case when no officer appeared by 10:40 a.m. The officer showed up 10-15 minutes after the dismissal. The Crown then appealed the dismissal, arguing the JP was wrong to refuse the adjournment.

Issues

1. Did the justice of the peace properly exercise his discretion in refusing the Crown's adjournment request?
2. Should police scheduling practices take priority over an accused person's right to a timely trial?

The State's Responsibility vs. The Accused's Rights

Justice Lenz was blunt about the real issue: the Brantford Police deliberately scheduled trials based on when officers were on duty, rather than ensuring officer availability for court dates. The JP had noted that if the officer was sick or had a family emergency, an adjournment would be granted — but "the officer's duty is to be in court on a date when a matter is set."

The appeal court agreed completely. Justice Lenz explained that while the State has a right to seek trials on the merits, it also has responsibilities. The police chose to prioritize cost savings over their obligation to ensure trials could proceed. As Lenz put it: "Here, the police chose to put cost over their right to a trial. Neither I nor the justice of the peace can see any reason to elevate the cost to the State, who seemingly have endless money, over the cost to the defendant, who I am sure has limited funds."

The court emphasized that when police scheduling practices work to their disadvantage, "I cannot see any reason that the court should then disadvantage the accused who is present and ready for trial."

Key Takeaway

The Crown's administrative convenience and cost-saving measures cannot override an accused person's right to proceed with trial when ready.

If you show up prepared for trial and the prosecution isn't ready due to their own scheduling choices rather than genuine emergencies, you have strong grounds to oppose adjournments and seek dismissal.