Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Court (Toronto West Region) Regina. Anton Harizanov. Before. His Worship P. Kowarsky Justice of the Peace

Similar documents
PROVINCIAL OFFENCES PROCEDURE ACT

Provincial Offences Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER P.33

2ND SESSION, 41ST LEGISLATURE, ONTARIO 66 ELIZABETH II, Bill 158

PRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA

Highway Traffic Act Code de la route

Type of law: CRIMINAL LAW. A 2015 Alberta Guide to the Law TRAFFIC OFFENCES. Student Legal Services of Edmonton

Ombudsman Toronto Enquiry Report. Enquiry into the City's delay of almost nine years collecting a Provincial Offences Act fine.

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) Defendants ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

Criminal Procedure Act 2009

PLEASE NOTE. For more information concerning the history of this Act, please see the Table of Public Acts.

STUDENT LEGAL SERVICES TRAFFIC OFFENCES A GUIDE TO THE LAW IN ALBERTA REGARDING OF EDMONTON COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS ACT

Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Brandon Oliver. [2011] O.J. No Ontario Court of Justice Brampton, Ontario. W.J. Blacklock J.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

North Bay (City) v. Vaughan, [2018] O.J. No. 1809

YOU VE been CHARGED. with a CRIME What YOU. NEED to KNOW

Office Consolidation Brampton Appeal Tribunal By-law A By-law to create the Brampton Appeal Tribunal and to establish its Rules of Procedure

PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Against. Gerard Joseph MacDonald

CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE MADE UNDER SECTION 25.1 OF THE STATUTORY POWERS PROCEDURE ACT

RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THECOLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO INDEX

Index. All references are to section numbers of the Contraventions Act.

ISSUES. Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing. Prepared by: Andrew Mason

CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS Section 11(b) right to be tried in a reasonable time APPLICATION TO PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL OFFENSES

STATE OF MARYLAND * IN THE * CIRCUIT COURT vs. * FOR * * CASE NO.

TRAFFIC COURT RULES FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM ADOPTED BY THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL FEBRUARY 1, 1979 EFFECTIVE DATE: MAY 3, 1979

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

v No Wayne Circuit Court ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF LC No NF DETROIT LLC and DAVID GLENN, SR.,

Rule 8400 Rules of Practice and Procedure GENERAL Introduction Definitions General Principles

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL

APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: TIMOTHY G. DUGAN, Judge. Affirmed.

A 2018 Alberta Guide to the Law. Bylaws, Tickets, & Fines

Legal Supplement Part B Vol. 55, No st April, RULES THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES, 2016

Reversed and Rendered; and Opinion Filed January 16, In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No.

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL

York Regional Police. Rules for Discipline Hearings under Part V the Police Services Act

The Summary Offences Procedure Act, 1990

R. v. LORNA BOURGET 2007 NWTTC 13 File: T-01-CR IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, OHIO. v. : T.C. NO. 12TRD2261

BY-LAW NO. 44 ONTARIO COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKERS AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS - RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

JERRY WAYNE WHISNANT, JR. Plaintiff, v. ROBERTO CARLOS HERRERA, Defendant NO. COA Filed: 2 November 2004

REGISTRATION OF PERSONS ACT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY, MISSOURI AT LIBERTY. STATE OF MISSOURI ) ) Plaintiff ) ) VS ) Case No. ) ) Defendant )

MINUTES HAMILTON LICENSING TRIBUNAL 10:00 a.m. Thursday, October 29, 2015 Council Chambers, 2 nd Floor Hamilton City Hall 71 Main Street West

NOTICE 1544 OF 2008 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT PUBLICATION FOR COMMENTS: TRANSPORT LAW ENFORCEMENT AND RELATED MATTERS GENERAL AMENDMENT BILL, 2009

ON1CALL RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR HEARINGS 1) DEFINITIONS

RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE & FITNESS TO PRACTISE COMMITTEE

Environmental Laws. Enforcement of First Nation Land Laws & Environmental Protection Laws

ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NICOLE MARGOT TARRACH, Defendant. Justin D. Bodor, Esquire, Assistant District Attorney for the Commonwealth

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO

Deal or no Deal The Antitrust Plea Agreement that Came and Went in R. v. Couche-Tard Inc.

A GUIDE TO POLICE SERVICES IN TORONTO

1. (1) This Act may be cited as the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing (Amendment) Act 2013.

WALTER J. ROTHSCHILD JUDGE

SASKATCHEWAN COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH RULES RESPECTING PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCES

GROUP 3 TRIAL AND SENTENCING IN CORPORATE CRIME CASES

PAY EQUITY HEARINGS TRIBUNAL RULES OF PRACTICE

Who s who in a Criminal Trial

1990 CHAPTER S HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

CHILDREN COURT RULES, 2018

OTTAWA POLICE SERVICE DISCIPLINE HEARING IN THE MATTER OF ONTARION REGULATION 268/10 MADE UNDER THE POLICE SERVICES ACT, RSO 1990,

l_132_ nd General Assembly Regular Session Sub. H. B. No

TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 610, PENALTIES, ADMINISTRATION OF. Chapter 610 PENALTIES, ADMINISTRATION OF. ARTICLE 1 General

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

Alberta Justice and Solicitor General. Information for Self-represented Litigants In. Provincial Court. Adult Criminal Court

MANUAL - CHAPTER 15 SENTENCING. Before you accept a guilty plea or start a criminal trial, you should know and follow URPJC 3.08

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND

Record Suspension Guide

How to personally serve documents for a Provincial Court of British Columbia (Canada) family law process

$46, in Canadian Currency (In rem), Respondent. June 16, 2010; with subsequent written submissions. REASONS FOR DECISION

INDICTABLE OFFENCES (PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY) ACT

Coroners Act. Purpose: Where the Act Applies: How the Act Works

Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act

BY-LAW AND COMPLIANCE, LICENSING AND PERMIT SERVICES PERSONAL INFORMATION BANKS

Small Claims and Minor Offences Courts Ordinance, 2002.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 28, 2012

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH, MINISTRY OF JUSTICE CROWN COUNSEL POLICY MANUAL. July 23, 2015

The Credit Reporting Agencies Act

APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE Security & Related Activities (Control) Act 1996

Instructions on how to submit a Notice of No Trespassing form to prevent Children s Aid Society (CAS) workers from entering private property

SNOWMOBILE. The Snowmobile Act. being

CRIMINAL LAW PROFESSIONAL STANDARD #2

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R v. Robichaud, 2008 NSPC 51 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN. - versus - PHILLIP ROBICHAUD

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: October 26, NO. 33,084 5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Federal Contraventions Tickets. Your Rights and Duties under the Law. Newfoundland and Labrador

ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION ACT

The Summary Offences Procedure Act, 1990

ARTICLE IX DISCIPLINE

Transcription:

Citation: R. v. Harizanov, 2008 ONCJ 690 Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Court (Toronto West Region) Regina v Anton Harizanov Before His Worship P. Kowarsky Justice of the Peace Charge: Careless Driving Highway Traffic Act, Section 130 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT For the Prosecution: Ms. A. Cahill For the Defendant: Himself Trial: December 11, 2008 Judgment: December 11, 2008 1

R. v. Anton Harizanov A. INTRODUCTION 1. On December 11, 2008 I convicted the defendant of Careless Driving under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act. These are the Reasons for my Judgment which I delivered orally at the conclusion of the trial. 2. The defendant is a lawyer who represented himself in these proceedings. B. HISTORY 3. On June 4, 2007 the defendant was served with an Offence Notice under Part I of the Provincial Offences Act, charging him with Careless Driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act. 4. The Certificate of Offence, which is a carbon copy of the Offence Notice, indicates that the offence is alleged to have been committed on June 3, 2007, the day prior to the service of the Offence Notice. 5. The Notice of Intention to Appear which was signed and filed by the defendant is dated June 3, 2007, the day prior to the service of the Offence Notice. It is not clear from the court stamp exactly on what date in June 2007 the Notice of Intention to Appear was filed in court, but since I have heard nothing to the contrary, I accept that it was filed within the prescribed period of 15 days. 6. On August 8, 2007 the court issued a Notice of Trial and mailed it to the defendant at the address which he provided in his Notice of Intention to Appear. The Notice indicated that the matter was set down for trial on March 11, 2008. 7. On March 11, 2008 the defendant failed to appear in court. He was deemed not to dispute the charge, convicted and sentenced to pay the set fine of $260.00. 8. On March 17, 2008 the defendant applied for a Reopening of the conviction on the grounds that he had not received the Notice of Trial. The court granted his request, and on the same day, handed to him a new Notice of Trial for May 14, 2008. 9. The court record, as endorsed on the back of the Certificate of Offence, indicates that on May 14, 2008 the matter was adjourned at the request of the defendant to September 17, 2008, and that complete disclosure provided today. 10. On September 17, 2008, although the court endorsement on the Certificate of Offence does not indicate at whose request, the matter was again adjourned to December 11, 2008; the entire tier was blocked off for the trial, and the matter was marked peremptory on the defendant. C. THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS 11. Before entering a plea, the defendant made a Motion asking for an Order as follows: 1. Abridging time for filing/service of Notice of Motion; 2. Relief under Section 24 (1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the grounds of Sections 7, 11 (b), 11 (d); 2

3. In the alternative, adjournment of the matter and, (a) an order for production of disclosure required to make a full answer and defence to the charge; (b) removal of the prosecution team at 2700 Eglinton Avenue West and traverse/transfer of the matter to prosecution by the Attorney General Criminal Division, as allowed by the MOU between the province and the city, or alternatively, traverse/transfer of the matter to Old City Hall (c) an order for an independent investigation of police and prosecutorial conduct in the matter; (d) an order compelling the appearance of City of Toronto prosecutors Ms. Mima Frederick, Ms. Ilana Szenes, Mr. Michael Lee and Mr. George Barlett. 12. The Notice of Motion is dated December 4, 2008, and signed by the defendant. Although the Notice of Motion refers to an attached supporting affidavit of the defendant, there was no affidavit before the court. 13. Attached to the Notice of Motion was a document headed: Form 4, Courts of Justice Act, Notice of Constitutional Question. The Notice is not signed by the defendant or by anyone else. 14. In addition, there were two other documents headed Fax Call Reports signed and filed in this court by the defendant on December 5, 2008, indicating that a fax attaching a Constitutional Challenge was sent to Mr. George Barlett, Director of Prosecutions, City of Toronto. 15. The second Fax Call Report is dated November 29, 2008, purporting to send a copy of Form 4 via fax, but there is no indication as to whom the fax was sent. D. PROCEEDINGS ON THE MOTION 16. The prosecutor argued that the Notice of Constitutional Question was not served properly nor within the time limits prescribed by section 109 (2.2) of the Courts of Justice Act, which provides as follows: The notice shall be served as soon as the circumstances requiring it become known and, in any event, at least fifteen days before the day on which the question is to be argued, unless the court orders otherwise. 17. In R. v. Mitchell (2000), I M.V.R. (4 th ) 259 (O.C.J.) the court held that failure to give notice according to section 109 of the courts of Justice Act is fatal. 18. The Notice of Constitutional Question was not signed. There is no documentary evidence that it was served on the Attorney General of Canada at all, and even if it was sent, it was not served within the prescribed period of 15 days. 19. In such circumstances I found no reason to make any rulings on the validity of the specific requests in the order sought. Accordingly, I denied both the defendant s constitutional challenge and the alternative relief sought. 3

20. The defendant then argued that there were numerous disclosure materials with which he had not been provided, even though the court records show that disclosure was provided in full to the defendant at his court appearance on September 17, 2008. 21. I requested that the defendant provide me with details of the items of disclosure which he believed were still missing. After hearing what he was still requesting, I ruled that the disclosure items to which he referred were not required to be disclosed because they were either irrelevant or not required to enable him to make full answer and defence to the charge. However, I informed the defendant that in the event that during the course of the trial I found that the prosecution s disclosure obligations had not been properly fulfilled, I would make an appropriate order at that time. 22. I informed the defendant that the Provincial Offences Act, pursuant to which the charge was being prosecuted, is a procedural mechanism promulgated by the Government of Ontario in order to deal with regulatory offences in an inexpensive and expeditious manner. Provincial Offences Courts are required to consider substance and not alleged procedural irregularities in bringing matters to finality. It is well established law that the overall philosophy of the Provincial Offences Act is to ensure that technical objections do not impede the reaching of a verdict on the merits of each case. 23. Having made such rulings the court ordered that the trial proceed forthwith. Yet again, the defendant argued that the Certificate of Offence was defective in that on the Certificate of Offence there had previously been a sticker which was no longer there. I examined the Certificate and found that it was complete and regular as required. 24. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge. E. THE PROSECUTION S EVIDENCE 25. The prosecutor called Detective S. Moore, whose testimony, in summary, is as follows: a) On Sunday June 3, 2007 at approximately 3.20 pm. he was off duty, driving his personal motor vehicle southbound on the Don Valley Parkway in Toronto at about 90 km. per hour, which is the posted speed limit. The traffic was moderate to heavy. b) After entering the Don Valley Parkway from Don Mills Road, he changed into the lane immediately to the left of the on-ramp. c) He then observed a black Volkswagen motor vehicle being driven at a high rate of speed behind his vehicle, partially on the shoulder. The Volkswagen moved into the centre lane, passed the officer s vehicle at a high rate of speed, and then swerved back into the left lane at about 120 4

km. per hour, just missing the officer s vehicle by about 1 foot, causing the officer to swerve in order to avoid a collision. d) The officer told the court that the driver of the Volkswagen then made a finger gesture at me which he was able to see clearly as it was travelling right in front of the officer. Suddenly the driver of the Volkswagen slammed on his brakes causing the officer to do the same to avoid a collision at which time he was almost hit by another vehicle being driven just behind the officer s. e) Officer Moore then pulled out his Police Officer Identification Card and held it towards the driver of the Volkswagen which was still travelling right in front of him. The driver moved into the centre lane and slowed down to about 90 km. per hour. The officer drove alongside the Volkswagen and was able to make eye contact with the driver. f) The officer motioned to the driver to pull over, which he did not do. He kept driving and made no attempt to stop. From his earlier viewpoint the officer was able to obtain the licence plate number of the Volkswagen, and to identify the driver, the sole occupant, as a male in his mid to late thirties with short brown hair and a beard. He called Police Despatch to request that a police vehicle be sent to apprehend the driver. g) Officer Moore continued to follow the Volkswagen on the Don Valley Parkway to a point where the driver appeared to be turning off at the Richmond Street Exit. Suddenly, however, the Volkswagen swerved Eastbound across three lanes of traffic, and turned into Lakeshore Blvd. At that time the officer decided to abandon the chase for safety reasons. h) The following day, on June 4, 2008, the officer attended his office at 51 Division, and ascertained that in fact a police officer had not been despatched to endeavour to apprehend the driver of the Volkswagen the day before. The officer made official enquiries, and obtained the name and address of the owner of the vehicle concerned. i) On June 4, 2008 the officer went to the address which he had obtained for the owner of the vehicle. He located the defendant, who provided the officer with the requisite documentation. From the digital photograph on the Ontario Driver s Licence which was provided, the officer was able to identify the defendant as the person who had been driving the Volkswagen on the previous day, and pointed him out in court. j) Officer Moore then served the defendant with an Offence Notice pursuant to the provisions of Part I of the Provincial Offences Act, charging him with Careless Driving under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act. k) The defendant cross examined officer Moore, and the prosecution closed its case. 5

F. THE EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENDANT 26. The court invited the defendant to testify, but the defendant declined, stating that his various motions had been denied, and he had not received sufficient disclosure to enable him to make full answer and defence to the charge. The court then heard submissions from both the prosecutor and the defendant. G. ANALYSIS 27. Section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act provides as follows: Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less that $200 and not more that $1000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than two years. 28. Our courts have held that the standard required of drivers in the context of Section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act is an objective one which is constantly shifting, depending on the road, visibility, weather and traffic conditions that exist at the time or that may reasonably be expected, as well as any other conditions that ordinary drivers would take into consideration. 29. In R. v. Weedon (1987), 7 M.V.R. (2d)21 (B.C.Co.Ct) the Court held that in Careless Driving cases the actus reus is improper driving judged on an objective basis. The lack of due care and attention can then be inferred from the objective indicator. 30. In R. v. Globocki [1991], O.J. No. 214 (O.C.J.), the Court held that the Prosecution is required to show sufficient departure from the standard of a prudent and reasonable driver to render the driving deserving of punishment, and that in each case it is necessary to consider whether and to what extent the defendant departed from the standard appropriate to the factual circumstances facing the defendant. 31. I have no evidence to contradict the evidence of Officer Moore, who testified in a clear and forthright manner that the defendant changed lanes at high speeds, swerved in front of his vehicle on a busy highway almost causing a collision, slammed on his brakes for no apparent reason while driving directly in front of the officer s vehicle, almost causing another collision, and gave the finger to the officer, which I infer was a sign of road rage on the part of the defendant for reasons unclear to the court. While being followed by the officer who had motioned 6

to him to pull over, the defendant swerved across three lanes of traffic in order to escape from the officer. H. DISPOSITION 32. From Officer Moore s evidence, which remains unchallenged, I find the defendant s driving to have been a marked departure from the standard required of a prudent and reasonable driver, and that such driving constitutes careless driving within the meaning of section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act, and is deserving of punishment. 33. I am therefore satisfied that the Prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, there will be a finding of guilty and a conviction will be registered. P. Kowarsky J.P. Ontario Court of Justice December 12, 2008 7