R v Matteo

R. v. Matteo

[2005] O.J. No. 5472
Ontario Court of Justice — I.A. MacDonnell J. | July 11, 2005

Background

Gliatta Matteo was charged with failing to wear a complete seatbelt assembly. He was notified of his trial date around the end of 2002 for a trial scheduled in November 24, 2003. But almost 11 months passed before he retained anyone to represent him — not until November 14th, just before his trial date. His agent then filed a constitutional motion seeking a stay of proceedings for delay under section 11(b) of the Charter, arguing his right to trial within a reasonable time had been violated.

The problem? The motion was filed with only 7 days' notice to the Attorney General, not the 15 days required under section 109 of the Courts of Justice Act. At trial, the prosecutor objected to proceeding with the Charter application because of the short notice period. The Justice of the Peace agreed and dismissed the stay application solely on that basis, without considering whether the notice period could be shortened.

Issues

1. Whether the Justice of the Peace erred by dismissing the Charter application based solely on insufficient notice
2. Whether the court had discretion to abridge the 15-day notice requirement

The Court's Discretion to Abridge Notice

Judge MacDonnell found that the Justice of the Peace made a fundamental error. Section 2.2 of the Courts of Justice Act gives courts discretion to abridge notice periods, and this discretion applies even to constitutional applications. The Justice of the Peace had the authority to shorten the notice requirement but failed to even consider this option.

The Court emphasized that while the 15-day notice rule serves an important purpose — ensuring the Attorney General has adequate time to respond to Charter challenges — it's not an absolute bar. Courts regularly waive time periods in criminal matters when fairness requires it. The touchstone is whether the Crown would be prejudiced by the shorter notice.

Here, the Justice of the Peace treated the notice requirement "as written in stone" without inviting submissions from either party or addressing whether circumstances justified abridging the notice period. This was a legal error that required the matter to be sent back for a new trial.

Key Takeaway

Courts have discretion to accept Charter applications with less than 15 days' notice if fairness requires it.

If you need to file a Charter application on short notice, don't assume the court will automatically reject it. Ask the court to exercise its discretion to abridge the notice period and explain why the circumstances justify proceeding despite the short notice.