R v Redtree Contract Carriers

R. v. Redtree Contract Carriers; R. v. Dynamex Canada Corp.; R. v. Martin

[2004] O.J. No. 5906
Ontario Court of Justice — A.R. Webster J. | June 24, 2004

Background

Three trucking companies faced Highway Traffic Act charges including oversize/overweight vehicle violations, unlawful permits, and failure to maintain daily logs. Notice of trial was issued January 7, 2004 for a February 10 trial date. Defence counsel Ms. Burness requested disclosure around January 20. For most matters, disclosure didn't arrive until February 3 — just seven days before trial. The Dynamex disclosure arrived Friday evening January 30 at 5:06 p.m., meaning it wouldn't be reviewed until the following Monday.

Knowing her professional duties required thorough review with clients, Ms. Burness immediately prepared a motion for adjournment. She brought it February 9 before Justice Ponton, arguing seven days was insufficient time to properly prepare. Ponton denied the motion, calling the cases "non-complex" with minimal defence preparation required. The next day, Justice Taylor agreed and forced the matters to trial. When Ms. Burness withdrew rather than proceed unprepared, convictions were entered under section 9 of the Provincial Offences Act.

Issues

1. Did the justices of the peace err in denying adjournments when disclosure was provided only seven days before trial?
2. Can courts force trials to proceed based on their assessment that charges are "non-complex"?

The Right to Adequate Time for Disclosure Review

Justice Webster was blunt: this was "a denial of natural justice." The court emphasized that disclosure isn't just about handing over documents — it's a two-part process requiring both provision and adequate time for review with the client. Seven days is insufficient, regardless of how simple the charges appear.

The judge rejected the prosecution's argument about limited court time, stating citizens shouldn't be "prejudiced because... the Province of Ontario, or the City of London are not making more time available." For trucking companies, even "simple" Highway Traffic Act convictions carry serious consequences through the CVOR point system, which can shut down operations for 30-90 days if too many points accumulate.

Most importantly, there are no "tables, regulations, etcetera, that assign varying levels of complexity" to different offences under the Provincial Offences Act. Every defendant has the same right to full answer and defence under section 46(2), with no qualifying clause limiting this right to "complex" cases only.

Key Takeaway

Courts cannot rush your trial because they think your charges are "simple" — you have an absolute right to adequate time to review disclosure, regardless of the offence type.

If you receive disclosure close to trial, immediately file a motion for adjournment with supporting affidavit evidence. Don't let the court pressure you into proceeding unprepared just because of scheduling constraints or their assessment of case complexity.