R v Vanier

R. v. Robert J. Vanier

Offence No. 78620694
Ontario Court of Justice, Provincial Offences Court — Justice of the Peace A. Murphy | February 14, 2006

Background

Robert Vanier was charged with speeding under section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act in Chatham-Kent. But this wasn't just another speeding ticket case — it exposed a systematic problem with how the local police and prosecution were handling traffic charges.

Crown counsel P. Bailey appeared before Justice of the Peace Murphy and made a stunning admission: the police had been operating an unauthorized plea-bargaining scheme. Officers would clock drivers at one speed, then charge them at a lower speed, telling defendants they could either accept the reduced charge or risk going to trial and being convicted at the higher speed. Bailey called this an "ad hoc practice" that had "put the case management process in the hands of the police rather than in the hands of the prosecutor."

Issues

1. Whether the prosecution's withdrawal of the charge should be endorsed by the court
2. What remedial action should be taken regarding the systematic prosecutorial misconduct

The Prosecutorial Misconduct Revelation

Bailey explained that this unauthorized practice had evolved "without my knowledge or consent" in response to speed-related fatalities on Highway 401. Police had essentially taken over the prosecutor's discretionary charging function, creating their own informal plea-bargaining system at the roadside. When Vanier appealed his case, it brought this practice to Bailey's attention.

The Crown's response was to meet with city solicitors, detachment commanders, and colleagues in surrounding counties to address the problem. Bailey indicated they would be meeting with managers to "sort of breathe new life into the protocol" and put proper prosecutorial discretion back where it belonged — with the prosecution, not the police.

The Court's Response

Justice of the Peace Murphy asked pointed questions about whether there had been "an amendment to the face of the certificate at some point in time," suggesting potential certificate defects in addition to the procedural problems. The court wanted to understand exactly what had happened with the charging documents.

Bailey confirmed that Vanier "was clocked at a speed in excess of what's written on the ticket" and that "an application was made to amend the ticket to accord with the evidence." In other words, the police had been systematically under-charging people, then amending tickets upward if defendants chose to fight.

Key Takeaway

Police officers cannot make plea bargains — only prosecutors can exercise charging discretion.

This case reveals how systematic prosecutorial misconduct can infect an entire traffic enforcement system, and shows that even when the Crown tries to quietly withdraw problematic charges, courts will ask hard questions about what went wrong and why.