R v Sahadeo

R. v. Sahadeo

2016 ONCJ 122
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice P.A. Schreck | March 9, 2016

Background

Anderson Sahadeo was charged with unsafe lane change under section 154(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act following a motor vehicle accident on October 10, 2014. When his trial date arrived on April 22, 2015, Sahadeo didn't show up personally but sent a paralegal to represent him. The paralegal asked for an adjournment because they were missing part of a collision report that had been cut off during fax transmission — disclosure they could have easily obtained in advance.

Justice of the Peace Cotter denied the adjournment request, noting that Sahadeo had known about the disclosure issue beforehand and hadn't given any advance notice. When told the trial would proceed, the paralegal responded: "Thank you, Your Worship... he's instructed me to just walk away from it at this point." The Justice of the Peace then paged Sahadeo, got no response, and entered a conviction without a hearing under section 9.1(2) of the Provincial Offences Act.

Issues

1. Did the Justice of the Peace err in refusing the adjournment?
2. Did the Justice of the Peace err in proceeding under section 9.1(2) of the POA when the defendant had appeared through an agent?

The Section 9.1 Problem

Section 9.1(2) of the POA allows a court to enter a conviction without a hearing only when a defendant "fails to appear at the time and place appointed for trial." The prosecution argued that since the paralegal withdrew after the adjournment was denied, Sahadeo effectively failed to appear. But Justice Schreck on appeal said this interpretation was too broad and dangerous.

The court explained that section 9.1 works by allowing an inference that the defendant has waived their Charter right to a trial — but any waiver of Charter rights must be "clear and unequivocal." When someone shows up but then leaves or declines to participate, that's not the same as simply not showing up at all. In this case, it was obvious Sahadeo wanted to dispute the charge — that's why he sought an adjournment for "crucial" disclosure. You can't infer someone has waived their right to trial when they're actively trying to get a trial date that works for them.

The court also noted that a paralegal, like a lawyer, can only withdraw with the court's permission under R. v. Cunningham. The agent shouldn't have been allowed to just walk away, and the trial should have proceeded even without proper instructions.

Key Takeaway

If you show up to court through an agent, the court cannot use section 9.1(2) to convict you without a hearing, even if your agent withdraws or refuses to participate.

This case shows that courts must interpret section 9.1 strictly because it involves waiving fundamental Charter rights. However, the court was highly critical of both Sahadeo's lack of diligence in obtaining disclosure and his agent's unprofessional conduct in withdrawing without court permission.