R v Mitrevski

R. v. Mitrevski

[2001] O.J. No. 2202
Ontario Superior Court of Justice — O'Driscoll J. | May 14, 2001

Background

Sime Mitrevski was charged with careless driving under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act after rear-ending a vehicle that was waiting to turn left on Danforth Avenue in Toronto on September 8, 2000. Before the trial, there was a meeting between the prosecutor, defence counsel, the accused, the investigating officer P.C. Stewart, and even the victim whose car was struck. Everyone agreed that Mitrevski should plead guilty to the lesser included offence of "failing to turn left to avoid collision" under section 148(5) of the HTA.

When they appeared before Justice of the Peace T. Jewitt on January 22, 2001, defence counsel entered a plea of not guilty to careless driving but guilty to the included offence, with the prosecutor's consent. However, after hearing the facts, the Justice of the Peace decided she didn't think section 148(5) applied to the situation and refused to accept the negotiated plea. She then indicated she would continue with the trial herself on the original careless driving charge.

Issues

1. Whether a Justice of the Peace who refuses to accept a negotiated guilty plea should continue to preside over the trial
2. Whether the defendant's admissions during the failed plea create a reasonable apprehension of bias

The Bias Problem

The court found that while the Justice of the Peace had the right under section 45(4) of the Provincial Offences Act to refuse the negotiated plea, she should have adjourned the matter to a different Justice of the Peace. The problem was that during the plea proceedings, she had heard Mitrevski admit to the basic facts of the collision — that he was driving eastbound on Danforth Avenue and struck a vehicle that was waiting to turn left.

Justice O'Driscoll relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Re daSilva and the Queen, which established that when a judge rejects a guilty plea, "the fact of the essential admissions already made would raise a reasonable apprehension of bias" if the same judge continued with the trial. The defendant had entered the plea "with the understanding that such a plea would be accepted and the charge of careless driving was no longer in issue." Suddenly having to face trial on the original charge before the same judge who had heard his admissions was fundamentally unfair.

Key Takeaway

If a judge refuses your negotiated guilty plea, demand that the trial be heard by a different judge.

Any admissions you make during a failed plea bargain can create bias if the same judge continues with your trial. The law protects you from having your own words used against you in this situation.