R v Hamilton

R. v. Lisa Hamilton

[2003] (Information No. not provided)
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice J.A. Fontana | January 14, 2003

Background

Lisa Hamilton was stopped by police and clocked at 147 km/h in a 100 km/h zone using radar. However, the officer exercised his discretion and only charged her with speeding at 119 km/h — a reduction of 28 km/h from what the radar actually showed. Hamilton believed she wasn't guilty and exercised her right to go to trial rather than pay the ticket.

At trial on September 13th, the Crown prosecutor A. Colterman called evidence showing that Hamilton had actually been travelling 147 km/h. After presenting this evidence, the Crown requested that the Justice of the Peace amend the certificate from 119 km/h to 147 km/h to match what the officer had actually observed on radar. The Justice of the Peace granted the amendment, convicted Hamilton of speeding at 147 km/h, but kept the fine the same. Hamilton appealed to Superior Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Justice of the Peace properly exercised discretion in allowing the Crown to amend the certificate after the evidence was presented
2. Whether Hamilton was prejudiced by having to defend against a more serious charge than what appeared on the original ticket

The Amendment Power Under the Provincial Offences Act

The Crown relied on section 34(2) of the Provincial Offences Act, which allows courts to "amend the information or certificate as may be necessary if the matters to be alleged in the proposed amendment are disclosed by the evidence taken at the trial." The Crown argued that since the officer testified the actual speed was 147 km/h, the amendment simply made the certificate conform to the evidence.

Hamilton's lawyer argued this was fundamentally unfair — she had exercised her constitutional right to trial based on the charge of 119 km/h, and was now being "punished" with a higher speed for not pleading guilty. He cited R. v. Dwight Ali (1993), where Justice Allan ruled that amendments which significantly change the consequences for an accused person should not be permitted.

The Crown countered that Hamilton suffered no prejudice because: (1) the fine remained the same, (2) there's little defence available to radar speeding charges once you verify the equipment works properly, and (3) the defence would not have been conducted differently if the original charge had been 147 km/h.

The Court's Analysis

Justice Fontana reserved judgment to consider whether the amendment was properly granted. The case turned on the fundamental question of prejudice — not what the amendment does to the charge, but what effect it has on the accused person's ability to defend themselves. The court had to weigh whether Hamilton had "a full opportunity to meet all issues raised by the charge as amended" and whether her defence would have been conducted any differently.

Key Takeaway

When police give you a break on a ticket, that discretionary reduction should be respected at trial — not reversed through prosecutorial amendments.

This case highlights the tension between an officer's roadside discretion and the Crown's power to amend charges to match evidence. If you receive a reduced charge and choose to fight it, be prepared that the Crown may seek to restore the original, higher reading if their evidence supports it.