R v Formosa

R. v. Formosa

[1998] O.J. No. 4674
Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) — Chandhoke Prov. J. | November 3, 1998

Background

Wendy Formosa received a ticket on July 11, 1997 for "proceeding contrary to sign at intersection" under section 144(9) of the Highway Traffic Act. She filed a Certificate of Offence on July 16, 1997, gave notice of intention to appear on July 26, 1997, and applied for trial on July 24, 1997. She wanted to challenge the evidence of the issuing officer.

The court scheduled her trial for August 13, 1998 — a delay of 13 months. When she appeared through her agent, instead of proceeding to trial, she sought an adjournment to bring a Charter application claiming her right to trial within a reasonable time had been violated under section 11(b). The charge carried a minimum fine of $60, maximum of $500, and two demerit points.

Issues

1. Whether a 13-month delay for a minor regulatory offence violated section 11(b) of the Charter
2. What remedy was appropriate if the Charter right had been breached

The Section 11(b) Analysis

Judge Chandhoke applied the framework from R. v. Morin, examining: (1) length of delay, (2) waiver of time, (3) reasons for delay, and (4) prejudice to the accused. The 13-month delay was found to be "prima facie excessive" for a minor regulatory offence that typically takes less than 10 minutes to try.

The Crown argued the delay resulted from a "transitional period" in court structure, but the judge found this unacceptable. The court noted that several vacant courtrooms sat unused every night, and justices were willing to work extra shifts to clear the backlog, but proper steps weren't taken to address resource shortages. The judge emphasized that minor regulatory offences should be resolved much faster than criminal matters — ideally within 60-90 days, and no later than 8-10 months to be consistent with other Ontario jurisdictions.

Prejudice and Systemic Problems

The court found Formosa suffered real prejudice: she had to take time off work to apply for trial in person (no mail or fax applications allowed), faced increased insurance premiums while charges were pending, and incurred costs preparing the Charter application that exceeded the complexity of the original charge. The judge was particularly critical of a system that requires defendants to wait 13 months "for a three-minute scheduled trial time."

Judge Chandhoke noted that provincial prosecutors had been regularly inviting the court to stay proceedings for section 11(b) violations, and that "many courts, including this one, have stayed several and thousands of cases over the last ten years." The problem had gotten worse, not better.

Key Takeaway

Courts will not tolerate systemic delays that turn minor traffic violations into year-long ordeals.

If you're facing unreasonable delays in provincial offences court, document the timeline carefully and consider bringing a Charter application — but be prepared to prove specific prejudice beyond just the passage of time.