R v Smith

Her Majesty the Queen v. Alexander Smith

Ontario Court of Justice, Milton
Justice R.J. LeDressay | December 20, 2001

Background

Alexander Smith received a traffic ticket with a set fine of $132.50. According to the Provincial Offences Act regulations, fines between $101 and $150 should carry a victim fine surcharge of $25, making the correct total payable $157.50. However, the certificate of offence showed a total payable of $160.50 — exactly $3 more than it should have been.

Smith failed to respond to the ticket, so it proceeded as a "fail to respond" matter under section 9 of the Provincial Offences Act. The Justice of the Peace entered a conviction without Smith appearing in court. Smith then appealed, arguing that the certificate contained a defect that should have caused the Justice of the Peace to quash it.

Issues

1. Did the incorrect total payable amount constitute a defect in the certificate of offence?
2. Should the Justice of the Peace have quashed the certificate under section 9 of the Provincial Offences Act?

The Certificate Defect and Section 9

The defence relied on Regina v. Ali Khoshael, a decision from Justice Libman in the Toronto region. That case established that section 9 of the Provincial Offences Act creates a positive obligation for Justices of the Peace to review certificates in fail-to-respond cases. If the certificate is not "complete and regular on its face," and the defendant has not appeared to attone to the court's jurisdiction, the Justice must quash the proceeding.

The Crown initially disputed what the correct victim fine surcharge should be, but during the hearing, both counsel consulted Ontario Regulation 161/00 under the Provincial Offences Act. This regulation clearly showed that for fines between $101 and $150, the victim fine surcharge is $25. With a set fine of $132.50, the total should have been $157.50, not the $160.50 shown on the certificate.

Once the Crown conceded this point, Justice LeDressay followed the Khoshael precedent. The incorrect total payable was a defect that made the certificate incomplete and irregular. Since this was a fail-to-respond matter, and the defendant had never appeared to give the court jurisdiction, section 9 required quashing the certificate.

Key Takeaway

Even small mathematical errors on traffic tickets can be fatal defects if you know how to spot them.

This case shows that the Provincial Offences Act provides real protection for defendants, even in fail-to-respond situations. If you receive a ticket, always double-check that the math is correct by consulting the current regulations — a simple calculation error could be your ticket to freedom.