R v Roshan

R. v. Roshan

2017 ONSC 7382
Ontario Superior Court of Justice — Miller J. | December 11, 2017

Background

Mohammad Roshan was convicted of driving without insurance and other offences under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act and Highway Traffic Act on multiple dates in 2010 and 2013. He was fined a total of over $25,000, including victim fine surcharges. After initially receiving several extensions to pay, the Provincial Offences Court told him in May 2015 that "no further extensions will be considered."

Roshan tried to appeal his convictions twice — first to the Ontario Court of Justice (dismissed in May 2015), then to the Ontario Court of Appeal (motion for extension dismissed in March 2017). He made some payments totaling about $7,000 over the years, but claimed his suspended driver's licence prevented him from working to earn money for the remaining fines.

Issues

1. Can someone apply for mandamus to force a Provincial Offences Court to consider payment extension requests?
2. Does section 141(3) of the Provincial Offences Act bar this application because appeals were available?

The Mandamus Application

The Crown argued that mandamus wasn't available because Roshan should have appealed instead of seeking this extraordinary remedy. They pointed to section 141(3) of the POA, which generally prohibits applications to "quash" decisions where an appeal is provided.

But Justice Miller found a crucial distinction. Section 66(6) of the POA allows defendants to apply "at any time" for extensions of time to pay fines. The legislation permits unlimited applications — there's no restriction on how many times someone can ask. When the Provincial Offences Court said "no further extensions will be considered," they were refusing to exercise their jurisdiction under section 66(4), which requires them to consider each application based on factors like good faith and whether the extension would be used to evade payment.

The court cited R. v. Baritz for the principle that the POA creates "a simple and expeditious process" where defendants can repeatedly apply for payment extensions. The goal is to help offenders satisfy their debt to the community, and blanket refusals to consider future applications violate this scheme.

Key Takeaway

A Provincial Offences Court cannot refuse to consider future payment extension applications — they must examine each request individually under section 66(4).

If a POA court tells you they won't consider any more extension requests, that's a jurisdictional error you can challenge through mandamus in Superior Court, even if you've exhausted your appeal rights on the underlying conviction.