R v Rene

R. v. Rene

Ontario Court of Justice — Justice M.E. Lane | August 25, 2004
Ontario Court of Justice — Toronto

Background

Michelle Rene received a Certificate of Offence but failed to respond within the required time period. The court entered a conviction for "fail to respond" without Rene appearing. She later appealed this conviction, represented by agent J. Cox, with prosecutor P. McMahon appearing for the City of Toronto.

The case became seized by the court on June 3, 2004. Initially, McMahon opposed the appeal, arguing there was no demonstrated prejudice. However, after further review, he sent a letter on August 19, 2004, stating that "the appeal should be allowed and an acquittal ought to be entered." Yet when the matter came before Justice Lane, McMahon appeared to argue a completely different position.

Issues

1. Whether the Certificate of Offence was complete and proper on its face
2. Whether the court had jurisdiction to deal with the matter given defects in the service box
3. What remedy should be granted — quashing the certificate or entering an acquittal

The Service Box Defect and Jurisdictional Arguments

The core problem was that the service box on the Certificate of Offence was not properly completed — it wasn't "ticked off." McMahon argued this created a jurisdictional issue under section 4 of the Provincial Offences Act, read with Regulation 200, Rule 11. His position was that Rule 11(1) states the Clerk "shall not accept for filing a Certificate of Offence more than seven days after the day on which the offence notice or summons was served, unless the time is extended by the Court."

McMahon's argument was sophisticated: because the court cannot establish when (or if) the summons was served due to the missing service information, they erred in accepting the filing. Since the court had no jurisdiction to accept the Certificate in the first place, the conviction was wrongful. He distinguished this from cases where judges simply quash defective certificates, arguing the court never had authority to deal with the matter at all.

The Court's Analysis of Remedies

Justice Lane grappled with the difference between quashing a certificate versus entering an acquittal. She noted that under section 138(1) of the Provincial Offences Act, on appeal the court may "affirm, reverse, or vary the decision appealed from" or direct a new trial. The judge explained she could not affirm (since all agreed the conviction was wrong), would not direct a new trial, and saw no reason to vary the decision.

The court concluded that since section 9(1) of the POA requires a Justice of the Peace to quash proceedings when the Certificate is not "complete and regular on its face," the proper remedy on appeal was to do what the JP should have done originally — quash the certificate. Justice Lane rejected the idea of entering an acquittal, noting that requires a valid charging document to proceed upon.

Key Takeaway

A defective service box on a Certificate of Offence can be fatal to the prosecution's case, but the remedy is quashing the certificate, not an acquittal.

Self-represented defendants should carefully examine their certificates for completeness, particularly the service information. Even if you miss your deadline to respond, these defects can still be raised on appeal and may result in the entire proceeding being quashed.