R v Skinderpal Singh

R v Skinderpal Singh

Unreported (Ont. C.J., January 14, 2000)
Ontario Court of Justice — Mr. Justice W. J. Blacklock | Brampton, January 14, 2000

Background

Skinderpal Singh was convicted by a justice of the peace under section 9.1 of the Provincial Offences Act after failing to respond to his certificate of offence — the "deemed not to dispute" procedure. The certificate had been certified by the officer, but the date on which it was served on Singh was left blank. On appeal, the question was whether a certificate with that gap could support a conviction entered without any evidence at all.

Issues

1. Does a blank service date make a certificate of offence something other than "complete and regular on its face"?
2. Does s. 124 of the POA, which cures defects in an information or process, bar relief for that defect?
3. Should a defect be treated differently on a failure-to-respond conviction than at a contested trial?

The Court's Decision

Justice Blacklock drew a sharp line between the two situations. He had earlier held in R. v. Regalado that a similar defect was not fatal where the accused appeared and a normal trial took place. Section 9.1 is different — it is an exceptional section that lets a justice of the peace convict without any evidence whatsoever, and invoking that exceptional power requires compliance with its terms. Relying on Drinkwalter and Muir's text on Ontario provincial offences procedure, he noted that failure to include a certificate or affidavit of service is one of the recognised defects that renders a certificate quashable. The certificate here might be regular on its face, but he found it "difficult to characterize" as complete. He also rejected the Crown's reliance on s. 124: the complaint was not about a defect in process but about whether there was any basis to exercise the extraordinary s. 9.1 power at all. Noting consistency with Justice Hawke in R. v. Rodrigues and his own decision in R. v. Rose, he quashed the conviction.

Key Takeaway

The less the court hears from you, the more perfect the paperwork has to be.

A conviction entered because you did not respond rests entirely on the certificate. Courts hold that document to a stricter standard than they would at a trial where evidence was actually called — so defects that would be forgiven at trial, like a missing service date, can be fatal here.