R v Gatbonton

R. v. Michael Gatbonton

Ontario Court of Justice — His Worship Justice of the Peace J. Barroilhet | October 12, 2005
Ontario Court of Justice, City of Toronto

Background

Michael Gatbonton was charged with disobeying a sign under section 182(2) of the Highway Traffic Act. On November 4, 2004, at 5:00 p.m., Officer Stuart Parsons observed Gatbonton's vehicle make a left-hand turn from southbound Bay Street onto the on-ramp to the eastbound Gardiner Expressway — directly past two "no left-hand turn" signs. The officer was positioned halfway up the on-ramp, giving him a clear view of the violation.

When the case came to trial, defense counsel Todd Brown requested disclosure but received handwritten notes that were largely illegible. After multiple requests for clarification, the defense sought an adjournment, arguing the disclosure was insufficient and contained "abbreviations that are undecipherable." The prosecution opposed the adjournment, with prosecutor Ms. Barybina noting the matter had already been dealt with previously.

Issues

1. Whether the defendant was entitled to an adjournment based on allegedly insufficient disclosure
2. Whether the officer's testimony was sufficient to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt

The Adjournment Application

Defense counsel argued that the officer's handwritten notes were so unclear they couldn't be properly used to cross-examine the witness. The court acknowledged this was a "contested" disclosure issue, noting that some of the officer's annotations appeared to be in "shorthand or short form." However, Justice Barroilhet made it clear that while he gives defendants "the possibility to resolve" matters 98% of the time, he would not allow adjournments to be used as delay tactics.

The judge delivered a pointed lecture about fairness, stating: "The difficulty that I have, Your Worship, is that every defendant, including Mr. Gatbonton, in this country is presumed innocent under section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They are entitled to a trial before a jurist who is cognizant and prepared to apply that presumption of innocence." Despite this acknowledgment of Charter rights, the judge denied the adjournment, suggesting the defendant either enter a guilty plea or face trial with the available disclosure.

The Evidence

Officer Parsons testified that he was enforcing signs at the Bay Street on-ramp to the Gardiner Expressway. He described the intersection in detail: Bay Street has five lanes total, with three "no left-hand turn" signs prohibiting southbound traffic from accessing the eastbound Gardiner. The signs operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Parsons observed Gatbonton's Toyota make the prohibited left turn and stopped him immediately. During cross-examination, defense counsel explored whether the officer's positioning and the legibility of his notes, but the core facts remained unchallenged.

Key Takeaway

Judges may acknowledge your Charter rights while still denying procedural requests that seem like delay tactics.

Even when disclosure is genuinely problematic, courts are reluctant to grant adjournments if they believe the defendant is simply trying to postpone the inevitable. If you're going to challenge disclosure adequacy, be prepared to proceed immediately or risk appearing to abuse the process.