R v Stuparayk

R. v. Stuparayk and Firminio

2009 ONCJ 394
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice J.W. Bovard | August 28, 2009

Background

Ana Stuparayk and Bruno Firminio each received tickets for not wearing their seatbelts. Stuparayk was charged with "Driver – Fail to wear complete seat belt assembly contrary to Highway Traffic Act s. 106(3)" and Firminio got "Driver – Fail to wear complete seat belt assembly contrary to Highway Traffic Act s. 106(6)". Both requested trials but failed to show up on their court dates.

Under section 9.1 of the Provincial Offences Act, when you request a trial but don't show up, you're "deemed not to dispute the charge" and the Justice of the Peace can convict you without a hearing — but only if your certificate of offence is "complete and regular on its face." Both defendants were convicted in their absence and appealed, arguing their tickets had fatal errors.

Issues

1. Were the Certificates of Offence "complete and regular on their faces" when they cited incorrect section numbers?
2. Does citing the wrong section number invalidate a certificate under s. 9.1 of the POA?

The Section Number Mismatch Problem

Here's where it gets interesting. Stuparayk's ticket said "Driver" but cited section 106(3), which actually applies to passengers 16 years or older. Firminio's ticket also said "Driver" but cited section 106(6), which doesn't create an offence at all — it lists exemptions from wearing seatbelts (like when driving in reverse or if you have a medical certificate).

Justice Bovard found these weren't minor clerical errors but created genuine confusion. For Stuparayk, was she being charged as a driver or passenger? The consequences matter — insurance companies treat driver violations differently. For Firminio, why would an officer charge someone under a section that provides exemptions rather than creates offences?

The court emphasized that s. 9.1 convictions are "exceptional" because they happen without evidence or a hearing. The Certificate of Offence must be crystal clear because "a premium is rightly placed on the form of the document, since matters of substance are not engaged by s. 9.1." When there's ambiguity, the Justice of the Peace can't play guessing games about what the officer meant.

Key Takeaway

Wrong section numbers on tickets aren't just typos — they can kill your conviction if they create real confusion about what you're actually charged with.

If you're facing a s. 9.1 conviction and notice your ticket cites the wrong section or creates ambiguity about the actual offence, you may have grounds for appeal. The courts take a strict approach to certificate defects in default proceedings.