ENDNOTES

* Citations and the full text of the recommendations are not included in this Executive Summary. We direct the reader to the Interim Report for citations and the full text of recommendations made.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Provincial Offences Act, RSO 1990, c P 33 [hereafter POA]. For a detailed description of those provisions or for supplementary reading on the POA, see Sheilagh Stewart, Stewart on Provincial Offences Procedure in Ontario, 2nd ed (Salt Spring Island, BC: Earlscourt Legal Press Inc, 2005). Be aware that there have been amendments to the POA since the publication of this edition of the book.

[2] Douglas Drinkwalter & Douglas Ewart, Ontario Provincial Offences Procedure (Toronto: The Carswell Company Limited, 1980) at iii.

[3] Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

[4] Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46.

[5] Rick Libman, Libman on Regulatory Offences, looseleaf (Salt Spring Island: BC Earlscourt Legal Press Inc, 2002).

[6] Todd Archibald, Kenneth Jull & Kent Roach, Regulatory and Corporate Liability: From Due Diligence to Risk Management, looseleaf (Aurora, Ont: Canada Law Book, 2008) at 15-1; David Potts, “Municipal Systems of Administrative Penalties” in Creating and Enforcing Municipal By-Laws (Toronto: Canadian Institute, 2008). In his paper, David Potts identifies 21 existing or proposed administrative penalty systems for the enforcement of Ontario statutes.

[7] John Swaigen, Regulatory Offences in Canada: Liability and Defences (Toronto: Carswell, 1992) at xxxv.

[8] Ontario, Working Group for Provincial Offences Act Streamlining Review, Provincial Offences

Act Streamlining Review: Consultation Paper (Toronto: Working Group for POA Streamlining, 29

January 2009), online: Law Society of Upper Canada

<www.lsuc.on.ca/media/apr0109_poa_streamlining_consultation.pdf>.

[9] The Good Government Act, 2009, SO 2009, c 33, Schedule 4 (Bill 212) made numerous amendments to the Provincial Offences Act. 

[10] Youth Criminal Justice Act, SC 2002, c 1.

[11] POA, note 1, s 9 and 54.

[12] Based on information provided by Chief of Police John Domm, Rama Police Services on March 19 2010, enforcement agencies perceived to have a high proportion of provincial offence charges laid against aboriginal people are: OPP Lac Seul First Nations, Treaty 3 Police-Kenora, Anishinabeck Police Service, OPP Wikwemikong First Nation, OPP UCCM, Thunder Bay City and Thunder Bay Police Force.

[13] Ministry of the Attorney General, Court Services Division, ICON Database (statistics), Number of Charges Disposed by Disposition Outcome, Ontario Court of Justice, Provincial Offences Act, Parts I & III, Values by Select Charging Agencies Combined, 2007 – 2009  [April 1 2010, unpublished].

[14] Ministry of the Attorney General, Court Services Division, ICON Database (statistics), Number of Charges Disposed by Disposition Outcome, Ontario Court of Justice, Provincial Offences Act, Parts I & III, Values by Select Regions, 2007 – 2009  [March 30 2010, unpublished].

[15] Government of Ontario, Backgrounder, “Aboriginal Community Justice Programs” (January 26, 2009), online: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General  <www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/news/2009/20092601-acj-bg.asp>.

[16] Department of Justice Canada, “The Aboriginal Justice Strategy” (February 24, 2010), online: Department of Justice <www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/ajs-sja/index.html>.

[17] Although opportunities to take advantage of the existing programs for Aboriginals should be examined. The same is true of any consideration of the young person provisions of the POA.

[18] The LCO is indebted to the Honourable Mr. Justice Rick Libman and Kenneth Jull for identifying a number of these trends in conversations with the LCO.

[19] R v Wholesale Travel Group Inc, [1991] 3 SCR 154, 1991 CarswellOnt 117 at para 150 (SCC) (WLeC).

[20] For a detailed review of the Charter’s application to the POA see Libman, note 5 at c 10.

[21] Lavallee v. Alberta (Securities Commission), [2010] AJ No 144 (CA) [hereafter Lavallee].

[22] An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Sentencing) and Other Acts in Consequence Thereof, SC 1995, c 22 amending RSC 1985, c C-46.

[23] An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Criminal Liability of Organizations), SC 2003, c 21 amending RSC 1985, c C-46.

[24] Public Health Act, SBC 2008, c 28.

[25] R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), 1978 CanLII 11, 1978 CarswellOnt 24, (SCC) (WLeC).

[26] Libman, note 5 at 1-5 to 1-6.

[27] Securities Act, RSO 1990, c S5, s 122.

[28] Environmental Protection Act, RSO 1990, c E. 19, s 187 [hereafter EPA].

[29] Todd Archibald, Kenneth Jull & Kent Roach, Regulatory and Corporate Liability: From Due Diligence to Risk Management, looseleaf (Aurora, Ont: Canada Law Book, 2008) at INT-4.

[30] Archibald, Jull & Roach, note 6 at 15-1 (the authors note that the administrative system is thought to be less expensive than regulatory trials).

[31] Municipal Act, 2001, SO 2001, c 25 at s 102.1.

[32] Potts, note 6. In his paper, David Potts identifies 21 existing or proposed administrative penalty systems for the enforcement of Ontario statutes. A search of e-laws using “administrative /3 penalty and administrative /3 penalties results in a listing of 21 statutes and some statutes, such as the Environmental Protection Act, may set up an AMP system and call it something different. The Environmental Protection Act creates a monetary penalty that it calls an environmental penalty.

[33] City of Vaughan, by-law No 156-2009, A By-Law to Further Amend Parking By-Law 1-96, as amended, to provide for a system of administrative penalties and administrative fees, (30 June 2009) [hereafter Vaughan AMP By-law].

[34] POA, note 1, ss 162 and 165.

[35] Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c L 8.

[36] By-Law 4, s 6(2), made under s 62 of the Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c L 8.

[37] Ontario, Paralegal Rules of Conduct, online: Law Society of Upper Canada <http://www.lsuc.on.ca/with.aspx?id=1072>.

[38] Law Reform Commission of Ontario, Report on the Administration of Courts (Toronto: Law Reform Commission of Ontario, 1973) Part I at 17.

[39] Ministry of the Attorney General, Ontario Court Services Division, ICON Database (statistics) [unpublished]. The “date of first hearing request” is the date that the notice of intention to appear in court or the date on the summons is entered into the database. These numbers exclude prepaid fines and fail to respond.

[40] Conversation with Barry Randell, Director, Court Services with the City of Toronto (April 2010).

[41] The Provincial Offences Act, SO 1979, c 4.

[42] POA, note 1, s 1(1) definition of “offence”.  See also note 56 on the application of the POA to federal contraventions.

[43] Law Reform Commission of Canada, Studies in Strict Liability (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 1974) at 2.

[44] According to the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, Court Services Division, ICON Database (statistics) [unpublished], note 122, over 2 million charges were disposed of in each of 2007, 2008 and 2009. These numbers do not include tickets issued under Part II of the POA which governs the procedure for parking infractions.

[45] Summary Convictions Act, RSO 1970, c 450.

[46] Drinkwalter & Ewart, note 2 at iii.

[47] Law Reform Commission of Ontario, note 38, Part 1 at 17.

[48] Attorney General’s Statement, published in the Provincial Offences Procedure, Ministry of the Attorney General (April, 1978) at 1.

[49] Drinkwalter & Ewart, note 2 at iv.

[50] POA, note 1, s 2(1).

[51] Drinkwalter & Ewart, note 2 at iv- v.

[52] Murray D. Segal & Rick Libman, The 2010 Annotated Ontario Provincial Offences Act (Toronto: Thomson Canada Limited, 2010) at 1.

[53] R v Jamieson (1981), 64 CCC (2d) 550 (Ont CA) at 552, [1981] OJ No 1937 at para 5 (QL).

[54] The Ministry of the Attorney General does not collect data on the number of self represented litigants in POA proceedings. Although, there is a strongly held perception by those with whom the LCO consulted that the vast majority are self-represented.

[55] POA, note 1, s 1(1).

[56] The POA, with the exception of subsections 12(1), 17(5) and 18.6(5), applies to the prosecution of contraventions under the Contraventions Act, SC, 1992. c 47. Section 65.1 of the Contraventions Act provides the authority for the Application of Provincial Laws Regulations SOR/96-312, which states that the laws of the province referred to in the schedule apply to the contraventions designated under the Contraventions Regulations. Section 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 states that the POA and any regulations made under the POA and the rules of court made under the Courts of Justice Act of Ontario apply, with such modifications as are necessary, to contraventions alleged to have been committed on or after August 1, 1996, in Ontario or within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts of Ontario. Collectively, the offences to which the POA applies will be referred to as regulatory or public welfare offences.

[57] POA, note 1, s 1(1).

[58] Good Government Act, 2009, note 9, made numerous amendments to the Provincial Offences Act. At the time of writing, many of those amendments have not yet been proclaimed and accordingly, they are not discussed in detail below.

[59] Stewart, note 1 at 2.

[60] Highway Traffic Act, RSO 1990, c H.8, s 33(1) [hereafter HTA].

[61] Liquor Licence Act, RSO 1990, c L.19, s 31(2).

[62] Section 12 of the POA states that imprisonment is not available for a proceeding commenced under Part I.  Furthermore, while subsection 69(14) does allow for the incarceration of a person who does not pay a fine in limited circumstances (i.e. where person is able to pay the fine and incarcertation would not be contrary to the public interest), it is not truly available in Ontario.  Subsection 165(3) of the POA states that the enforcement provisions found in subsections 69(6) to 69(21) do not apply where a municipality has entered into a POA transfer agreement with the Attorney General.  Since the entire province is now covered by agreement, these enforcement tools, including imprisonment for unpaid fines, are not used or available.  See POA, note 1.

[63] POA, note 1, s 4.

[64] Rules of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) in Provincial Offences Proceedings, O Reg 200, as amended by s 6. The set fine is intended to reflect the average penalty for the offence charged and is somewhat above the minimum penalty for the offence, if any, and applicable to the average defendant in average circumstances. The Chief Justice fixes the amount since sentencing is a judicial act. See Stewart, note 1 at 4.

[65] POA, note 1, ss 8(1), 8(2).

[66] POA, note 1, s 7.

[67] POA, note 1, s 5.

[68] POA, note 1, s 9.

[69] POA, note 1, s 5(2).

[70] POA, note 1, s 28.

[71] POA, note 1, s 15(4).

[72] POA, note 1, s 18(1).

[73] POA, note 1, s 16.

[74] POA, note 1, s 17.

[75] Rules of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) in Provincial Offences Proceedings, note 64, r 6. 

[76] POA, note 1, s 17(3).

[77] POA, note 1, ss 18.2, 18.4.

[78] POA, note 1, c P-33, s 18.6.

[79] According to the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, Court Services Division, ICON Database (statistics) [unpublished], all charges received in 2009 under section 186(1) and (2) of the Environmental Protection Act, RSO 1990, c E.19, for contraventions of the Act or failing to comply with orders under the Act, were brought under Part III.

[80] Stewart, note 1 at 110.

[81] Occupational Health and Safety Act, RSO 1990, c O.1, s 25(1)(a) [hereafter OHSA].

[82] POA, note 1, s 1(1).

[83] Stewart, note 1 at 109.

[84] POA, note 1, s 23(1).

[85] POA, note 1, s 24, 26.

[86] POA, note 1, s 24(1)(a)(iii).

[87] According to the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, Court Services Division, ICON Database (statistics) [unpublished], 2,819 persons received jail sentences in 2007 under Part III and in 2008 that number was 2,898.

[88] POA, note 1, s 28.

[89] POA, note 1, s 56.

[90] POA, note 1, s 72.

[91] POA, note 1, s 58.

[92] POA, note 1, s 59.

[93] POA, note 1, s 60; see also Costs, RRO 1990, Reg 945.

[94] POA, note 1, s 60.1.

[95] POA, note 1, s 66.

[96] POA, note 1, s 68. Note that a potential for imprisonment may arise when enforcing a fine through the Small Claims Court or the Superior Court of Justice, but it is a remote possibility.  For example, if a person fails to answer a question or attend a judgment-debtor examination after being ordered to do so, he may be incarcerated for contempt of court.

[97] POA, note 1, s 69(2).

[98] POA, note 1, s 69(6).

[99] POA, note 1, ss 69(14), (16).  Note the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v Wu, 2003 SCC 73, where the concept of debtor’s prison for those unable to pay fines was strongly disapproved by the court. As per Justice Binnie at para 3, “the purpose of imposing imprisonment in default of payment is to give serious encouragement to offenders with the means to pay a fine to make payment. Genuine inability to pay a fine is not a proper basis for imprisonment.”

[100] POA, note 1, s 69(15).

[101] POA, note 1, s 165(3) states that subsections 69 (6) to (21) of the POA do not apply to fines that are governed by a POA transfer agreement.

[102] POA, note 1, s 67; see also Fine Option Program, RRO 1990, Reg 948.

[103] POA, note 1, s 76.

[104] POA, note 1, ss 77, 78.

[105] POA, note 1, s 80.

[106] POA, note 1, s 83.1.

[107] POA, note 1, s 91.

[108] POA, note 1, s 93.

[109] POA, note 1, s 95.

[110] POA, note 1, ss 97, 100, 101.

[111] POA, note 1, s 99.

[112] Rules of the Ontario Court (General Division) and the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) in appeals under section 116 of the Provincial Offences Act, O Reg 723/94.

[113] POA, note 1, ss 143 - 148.

[114] POA, note 1, ss 149 - 150.

[115] POA, note 1, s 150.

[116] POA, note 1, ss 154 - 157.

[117] POA, note 1, ss 158 - 158.1.

[118] POA, note 1, ss 158.2 - 160.

[119] POA, note 1, s 165.

[120] Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43, ss 70(2) and 70(3).

[121] Ontario Court of Justice, Biennial Report 2006/2007, online: Ontario Courts <http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/ocj/en/reports/annualreport/06-07.pdf> at 59.

[122] Ministry of the Attorney General, Court Services Division, ICON Database, Number of Charges Disposed by Statute, Ontario Court of Justice, Provincial Offences Act – Part I and Part III – Provincial Values 2007 - 2009 (17 September 2010, unpublished).

[123] Ministry of the Attorney General, note 122. 2.1 million charges were brought in each of 2007 and 2008; 1.9 million were brought under Part I; 165,000 were brought under Part II in 2007 and 173,000 were brought under Part II in 2008. Highway Traffic Act offences represented 80 – 81% of all Part I offences, or approximately 75% of all Part I and Part III offences combined.

[124] Ministry of the Attorney General, note 122.

[125] Casey Brendon, Acting Director for Revenue Services, City of Toronto, “Briefing Note to Mayor and City Council: 2009 Parking Ticket Activity” (30 April 2010) online: City of Toronto <http://www.toronto.ca/pay-toronto-tickets/pdf/2009activitybn.pdf>.

[126] Data provided to LCO by Patrick Emard, Coordinator, POA Court Services, City of Ottawa (02 November 2010).

[127] Data provided to LCO by Jane Iacobucci, Manager of Court Operations, Corporate Services City of Brampton (10 November 2010).

[128] HTA, note 60, ss 128, 130, 106, 84.1, 182(2) and 33(1).

[129] HTA, note 60, ss 172(2) and 84.1(3).

[130] Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, RSO 1990 c C.25, s 2.

[131] OHSA, note 81, ss 28 and 25.

[132] OHSA, note 81, ss 28(1)(b) and (d).

[133] OHSA, note 81, s 28(1)(d).

[134] OHSA, note 81, ss 26, 32.0.1(1)(a) and (b).

[135] OHSA, note 81, s 66.

[136] David Rider et al, “Survivor of balcony tragedy suing firms, province”, Toronto Star (17 August 2010) online: Toronto Star <http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/848749--survivor-of-balcony-tragedy-suing-firms-province>.

[137] EPA, note 28. Several offences are created under this Act, including the common offence of littering (s 89).

[138] Clean Water Act, 2006, SO 2006, c 22. Section 106 creates offences for breaches of the Act.

[139] Pesticides Act, RSO 1990, c P. 11. Section 42 creates offences for breaches of the Act.

[140] EPA, note 28 ss 91.1(a) and (b)(ii).

[141] EPA, note 28, ss 86 and 89(1).

[142] Clean Water Act, 2006, note 138, s 89(1).

[143] Clean Water Act, 2006, note 138, ss 63(1) and 106(2).

[144] Pesticides Act, note 139, ss 30(1).

[145] Liquor Licence Act, note 61. Section 61 creates offences under the Act.

[146] Smoke-Free Ontario Act, SO 1994, c 10. Section 15 creates offences under the Act.

[147] Liquor Licence Act, note 61, ss 41(4) and 32(1), (2).

[148] Liquor Licence Act, note 61, s 5(1).

[149] Liquor Licence Act, note 61, ss 61(3)(a) and (b).

[150] Smoke-Free Ontario Act, note 146, s 3(1).

[151] Smoke-Free Ontario Act, note 146, s 3.1(1).

[152] Smoke-Free Ontario Act, note 146, s 15(9).

[153] Trespass to Property Act, RSO 1990, c T.21, s 2.

[154] Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c F. 3, ss 46(1) and (2).

[155] Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, SO 1997, c 4, Part VII.

[156] Food Safety and Quality Act, 2001, SO 2001, c 20. Section 44 creates offences for contravention of this Act.

[157] Food Safety and Quality Act, 2001, note 156, s 31(1)(b).

[158] Christopher’s Law (Sex Offender Registry), 2000, SO 2000, c 1, s 11. 

[159] Safe Streets Act, 1999, SO 1999, c 8, s 5.

[160] Safe Streets Act, 1999, note 159, s 3(2)(f).

[161] Consumer Protection Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 30. Section 23 creates offences under the Act.

[162] Consumer Protection Act, 2002, note 161, ss 14(1)10 and 11.

[163] Consumer Protection Act, 2002, note 161, c 30, ss 37, 28, 29 and 40.

[164] Consumer Protection Act, 2002, note 161, c. 30, ss 39(1) and 40(1).

[165] Consumer Reporting Act, 1990, RSO 1990, c 30. Section 23 creates offences under the Act.

[166] Consumer Reporting Act, 1990, note 165, s 13(1).

[167] Consumer Reporting Act, 1990, note 165, ss 23(1) and (2).

[168] See subsequent discussion on R v Sault Ste Marie.  In Strasser v Roberge, [1979] 2 SCR 953, the court noted that for a provincial offence to require proof of mens rea, the statute would require use of the words “knowingly”, “willfully” and “intentionally”.

[169] R v Wholesale Travel Group Inc, note 19 at para 130. For a detailed review of the Charter’s application to regulatory offences see Libman, note 5 at c 10.

[170] Criminal Code, note 4, s 718.2 contains a list of sentencing principles. The POA, on the other hand, does not.

[171] Law Reform Commission of Canada, Our Criminal Law (Report 3) (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1976).

[172] Law Reform Commission of Canada, Working Paper 2, The Meaning of Guilt, Strict Liability, (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1974) at 4.

[173] Law Reform Commission of Canada, note 172 at 3.

[174] Law Reform Commission of Canada, Our Criminal Law (Report 3) (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1976) at 36.

[175] Law Reform Commission of Canada, note 174 at 28.

[176] R v Sault Ste Marie, note 25 at paras 60-61.

[177] R v Sault Ste Marie, note 25 at para 61.

[178] R v Wholesale Travel Group, note 19 at paras 24-26.

[179] R v Wholesale Travel Group, note 19 at paras 27-28)\.

[180] Libman, note 5 at 1-7.

[181] Law Reform Commission of Canada, note 174 at 34-35.

[182] Archibald, Jull & Roach, note 6 at 9-8 to 9-12; Swaigen, note 7 at 65.

[183] Archibald, Jull & Roach, note 6 at 9-10.

[184] R v Transport Robert (1973) Ltée [2003] OJ No 4306, 68 OR 3d 51 at para 27 (QL) [hereafter Transport Robert]

[185] In Chapter VI, the LCO also recommends that sentencing principles be included in the POA and that those principles should be different from those contained in the Criminal Code.

[186] Sherie Verhulst, “Legislating a Principles Approach to Sentencing in Relation to Regulatory Offences” (2008), 12 Can. Crim. L. Rev. 281 at 283.

[187] Ministry of the Attorney General, note 122.

[188] Conversation with Barry Randell, Director, Court Services with the City of Toronto (April 2010): the City issued roughly 2.8 million parking tickets in 2009.

[189] Ministry of the Attorney General, note 122. In 2009, 1,611,696 of the 2,159,185 Part I and Part III charges were for speeding.

[190] Law Reform Commission of Canada, note 174 at 29.

[191] POA, note 1, s 2(1).

[192] Drinkwalter & Ewart, note 2 at iii.

[193] Drinkwalter & Ewart, note 2 at iv.

[194] Ministry of the Attorney General, Attorney General’s Statement, April 1978, published in the Ontario Provincial Offences Procedure (Toronto: The Carswell Company Limited, 1980) at 1.

[195] See Coulter A Osborne, “Summary of Findings and Recommendations of the Civil Justice Reform Project” (November 2007), Chapter 19, online: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General <http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/cjrp/ >; ADR Institute of Ontario, Ontario Bar Association, and Ontario Association for Family Mediation, Submission to Attorney General Chris Bentley -  Creating a Family Process that Works: Final Report and Recommendations from the Home Court Advantage Summit (unpublished, November 22, 2009) at 12, online: Ontario Bar Association <http://www.oba.org/En/publicaffairs_en/PDF/Interim_Report_Home_Court_Advatnage_FINAL_12dec09.pdf >; Superior Court of Justice, Family Law Strategic Plan (unpublished, 2010) at  3, online: Ontario Courts <www.ontariocourts.on.ca/scj/en/famct/familylawstrategicplan.pdf>.

[196] R v Jamieson, note 53 at 552.

[197] R v Felderhof, 2003 CanLII 37346 (Ont CA) paras 40- 43.

[198] Drinkwalter & Ewart, note 2 at v.

[199] Drinkwalter & Ewart, note 2  at v.

[200] Ministry of the Attorney General, Attorney General’s Statement, April 1978, published in the Ontario Provincial Offences Procedure (Toronto: The Carswell Company Limited, 1980) at 1.

[201] Drinkwalter & Ewart, note 2 at 4- 7.

[202] See Archibald, Jull & Roach, note 6 at 14-18 and Chapter 11 for a review of Charter decisions in the regulatory context.

[203] Transport Robert, note 184 at paras 27- 28, appl’n for leave to appeal dismissed, [2004] SCCA No 8.

[204] Lavallée v Alberta (Securities Commission), note 21 at paras 20 - 23.

[205] Lavallée v Alberta (Securities Commission), note 21 at paras 20 - 23.

[206] Lavallée v Alberta (Securities Commission), note 21 at para 29, appl’n for leave to appeal dismissed, [2010] SCCA No 119.

[207] R v Pontes, [1995] SCJ No 70 at para 26.

[208] R v Jarvis, [2002] 3 SCR 757, 2002 SCC 73, para 96.

[209] See eg Cardinal v Director of Kent Institution, [1985] 2 SCR 643 at 653; see also Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] SCJ No 39 at para 20.

[210] Knight v Indian Head School Division No 19, [1990] 1 SCR 653 at 682.  See also Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) note 209, where the Court said at para 28:

 

The values underlying the duty of procedural fairness relate to the principle that the individual or individuals affected should have the opportunity to present their case fully and fairly, and have decision affecting their rights, interests, or privileges made using a fair, impartial and open process, appropriate to the statutory, institutional and social context of the decisions.

 

[211] Archibald, Jull & Roach, note 6 at 14-18, citing T Tyler, Why People Obey the Law (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990); T Tyler and Y Huo, Trust and the Rule of Law (New York: Russell Sage, 2001).

[212] For an overview of the different aspects of “access to justice”, see Patricia Hughes, “Law Commissions and Access to Justice: What Justice Should We Be Talking About?" [2008] 46 Osgoode Hall L J 773.

[213] Ian Ayres and John Braithwaite, Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).

[214] Archibald, Jull & Roach, note 6 at 1-8 to 1-9, citing D Yergin and J Stanislaw, The Commanding Heights: The Battle Between Government and the Marketplace That is Remaking the Modern World (New York: First Touchstone Edition, 1999) at 335 and the political views of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and former American President Ronald Regan.

[215] The Honourable Dennis O’Connor, Report of the Walkerton Inquiry: The Events of May 2000 and Related Issues, Part One (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2002) at 367.

[216] Marianne Ojo, Responsive Regulation: Achieving the Right Balance Between Persuasion and Penalisation, (19 March 2009) [unpublished, Centre for European Law and Politics, University of Bremen] at 2, online: Munich Peresonal RePEc Archive <http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/14170/ >, citing Ayres & Braithwaite, note 213.

[217] Ayres & Braithwaite, note 213 at 20- 21.

[218] Ayres & Braithwaite, note 213 at 22- 25.

[219] Ayres & Braithwaite, note 213 at 25.

[220] Ayres & Braithwaite, note 213 at 25.

[221] Ayres & Braithwaite, note 213 at 22.

[222] Ayres & Braithwaite, note 213at 19.

[223] John Braithwaite, To Punish or Persuade: Enforcement of Coal Mining Safety (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002) at 30-31.

[224] Archibald, Jull & Roach, note 6 at 14-10, citing J Braithwaite, Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002) at 39.

[225] R v Gladue [1999] 1 SCR 688 at para 71.

[226] Archibald, Jull & Roach, note 6 at 14-12.

[227] Archibald, Jull & Roach, note 6 at 14-13.

[228] Braithwaite, note 223 at 31.

[229] Braithwaite, note 223 at 33.

[230] See, Richard B Macrory, Regulatory Justice: Making Sanctions Effective, Final Report November 2006), online: UK Department for Business Innovation and Skills <http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file44593.pdf>. This report examined sanction options available in the UK and concluded that regulators were too reliant on criminal prosecutions and that more flexible and risk-based options were needed. One of its many recommendations was that government consider such tools as AMPS and introducing schemes that utilize restorative justice techniques.

[231] Segal & Libman, note 52 at 1.

[232] R v Jamieson, note 53 at para 5.

[233] See eg Transport Robert, note 184.

[234] Ontario Society for Prevent of Cruelty to Animals Act, RSO 1990, c O.36, s 11.2 and 18.1 make it an offence to cause an animal to be in distress.  A similar offence is created in the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C 46, s 445.1.

[235] See eg R v Jamieson, note 53 at p 552; R v Felderhof, note 197 at paras 40 - 43; Attorney-General for Ontario v Stephens, 2006 ONCJ 269 (CanLII) at para 15.

[236] Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, r 1.04 states:

 

(1)  These rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every civil proceeding on its merits.

(1.1)  In applying these rules, the court shall make orders and give directions that are proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues, and to the amount involved, in the proceeding.

 

[237] Family Law Rules, O Reg 114/99, r 2(2) to 2(4) states:

 

(2)  The primary objective of these rules is to enable the court to deal with cases justly.

 

(3)  Dealing with a case justly includes,

(a) ensuring that the procedure is fair to all parties;

(b) saving expense and time;

(c) dealing with the case in ways that are appropriate to its importance and complexity; and

(d) giving appropriate court resources to the case while taking account of the need to give resources to other cases.

 

(4)  The court is required to apply these rules to promote the primary objective, and parties and their lawyers are required to help the court to promote the primary objective.

 

[238] Rules of the Small Claims Court, O Reg 258/98, r 1.03(1) states:

 

These rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding on its merits in accordance with section 25 of the Courts of Justice Act.

 

[239] Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice in Criminal Proceedings, SI/97-133, r 1.04(1) reads:

 

These rules are intended to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding, and shall be liberally construed to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay.

 

[240] See eg the requirement for the clerk to give Notice of Trial in the POA, note 1, s 5(2) and compare with the requirement of the clerk to set a date and time for trial in the Rules of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) in Provincial Offences Proceedings, note 64, s 13(1).

[241] POA, note 1. Sections 5.1 and 17.1 require that a Notice of Intention to Appear be filed in person in certain parts of Ontario that are prescribed. These sections are the subject of amendments that could potentially reduce their complexity, but they have not yet been proclaimed, and in any event would not drastically reduce the level of complexity for an unrepresented defendant (Good Government Act 2009, note 9, ss 1(5), 1(22)).

[242] Proceedings Commenced by Certificate of Offence, RRO 1990, Reg 950.

[243] POA, note 1, ss 17.1(2), 18.1(2).

[244] Rules of the Small Claims Court, note 238.

[245] Ministry of the Attorney General, Small Claims Court, online: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General <http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/scc/default.asp>.

[246] Rules of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) in Provincial Offences Proceedings, note 64.

[247] Rules of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) in Appeals under Section 135 of the Provincial Offences Act, O Reg 722/94.

[248] Rules of the Ontario Court (General Division) and the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) in appeals under section 116 of the Provincial Offences Act, O Reg 723/94.

[249] Rules of the Court of Appeal in Appeals under the Provincial Offences Act, O Reg 721/94.

[250] Courts of Justice Act, note 120, s 70(2).

[251] Rules of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) in Provincial Offences Proceedings, note 64, was last amended in 2000 by O Reg 567/00. The three remaining rules were enacted in 1994 and have never been amended.

[252] Ministry of the Attorney General, Small Claims Court, online: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General <http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/scc/default.asp>.

[253] Ministry of the Attorney General, Civil Cases: Suing and Being Sued in the Superior Court of Justice, online: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General  <http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/civil/suing_and_being_sued_main.asp>.

[254] Ministry of the Attorney General, Family Justice, various resources including Guide to Procedures in Family Court, online: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General <http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/default.asp.

[255] See eg Rules of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) in Provincial Offences Proceedings, note 64; Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194; Family Law Rules, O Reg 114/99.

[256] See eg The Honourable Coulter A. Osborne, note 195 at 128.

[257] See Lorne Sossin, “Constitutional Accommodation and the Rule(s) of Courts”, (2005) 42 Alta L Rev 607, for a proposal that calls for the creation of an independent commission to resolve rules-related disputes that arise between the judiciary and government.

[258] As one possible example, a new POA Rules Committee might be comprised of:

1.     Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal (or designate)

2.     Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice (or designate)

3.     Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice (or designate)

4.     One Justice of the Peace appointed by the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice

5.     Attorney General (or designate)

6.     1 Crown Attorney, appointed by the Attorney General

7.     1 Municipal Prosecutor / City Solicitor, appointed by the Law Society of Upper Canada

8.     1 Paralegal, appointed by the Law Society of Upper Canada

9.     1 Lawyer, appointed by the Law Society of Upper Canada

10.  1 Municipal Court Manager appointed by the Attorney General

 

[259] Criminal Code, note 4, s 482(2).

[260] Ontario Court of Justice, Biennial Report 2006/2007, online: Ontario Courts <http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/ocj/en/reports/annualreport/06-07.pdf> at 59.

[261] Ministry of the Attorney General, note 122.

[262] Brendon, note 125.

[263] The LCO was advised that the City of Ottawa issued 343,000 parking tickets in 2009; the City of Brampton issued 89,285.

[264] Calculations derived from reports prepared from the ISCUS Database and Ontario Court of Justice, by the Management Information Unit, Court Services Division, Ministry of the Attorney General, Number of Courtroom Hours for Matters Heard by a Justice of the Peace, Ontario Court of Justice, Provincial Offences Act, Provincial Values 2009 (23 November 2010, unpublished) and Justice of the Peace Expenditures 2009/2010 (17 November 2010, unpublished).

[265] Discussion with Barry Randell, Director, Court Services, City of Toronto (13 October 2010).

[266] Amanda Tait (prepared by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre), The Use of Administrative Monetary Penalties in Consumer Protection (May 2007) at 9, online: Public Interest Advocacy Centre <www.piac.ca/files/amps.pdf>.

[267] Tait, note 266 at 9.

[268] Archibald, Jull & Roach, note 6 at 15-1.

[269] Ramani Nadarajah, “Environmental Penalties: New Enforcement Tool of the Demise of Envionmental Prosecutions?” in Stan Berger & Dianne Saxe, eds, Environmental Law, The Year in Review, 2007 (Aurora, Ont: Canada Law Book, 2008) 111 at 112.

[270] J Evans, HN Janisch & DJ Mulan, Administrative Law: Cases, Text, and Materials (4th ed) (Toronto: Edmond Montgomery Publications Ltd, 1995) at 24 – 25.

[271] Municipal Act, 2001, note 29 (Section 118 of The City of Toronto Act, 2006, c 11 Schedule A, and O Reg 611/06 establish an almost identical option for the City of Toronto. Any section reference to O Reg 337/03 should also be taken as a reference to that section of O Reg 611/06).

[272] Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006, SO 2006, c 32.

[273] Municipal Act, note 31, s 102.1 reads, in part, as follows:

 

(1)   Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, a municipality may require a person to pay an administrative penalty if the municipality is satisfied that the person has failed to comply with any by-laws respecting the parking standing or stopping of vehicles. 

(2)   Despite subsection (1), the municipality does not have the power to provide that a person is liable to pay an administrative penalty in respect of the failure to comply with by-laws respecting parking, standing or stopping of vehicles until a regulation is made under subsection (3).

 

[274] Administrative Penalties, O Reg 333/07, s 4 [hereafter AMP Regulation].

[275] For example, s 151(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides municipalities with the authority to establish an AMP system to deal with systems of licenses.  The City of Oshawa has implemented AMPs for licensing and the enforcement of other Municipal Act by-laws.

[276] Discussion with David Potts, City Solicitor, City of Oshawa (31 January 2011). See also Report to Finance and Administration Committee of the City of Oshawa, Re: Parking Administrative Penalty By-Law (13 January 2011), online: The City of Oshawa <http://www.oshawa.ca/agendas/Finance_and_Administration/2011/01-20/FA-11-21_Parking_Administrative_Penalty_System_By-law.pdf>

[277] Tait, note 266 at 7.

[278] EPA, note 28. 

[279] Metrolinx Act, 2006, SO 2006 c 16, s 211(1).

[280] Administrative Fees, O Reg 282/10, ss 7, 8.  See also City of Toronto, by-law No 7, Metrolinx, online: Go Transit <http://www.gotransit.com/public/en/docs/bylaws/By-law%20No.%207.pdf>.

[281] Michael Cardozo, “Administrative Law at the Local Level: The New York City Experience” (Speech to the American Bar Association, Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Section, 8 August 2008), online: New York City Government <http://www.nyc.gov/html/law/downloads/pdf/asp8_8_08.pdf>.

[282] James M Reilly, Jospeh D Condo & Mathew W Beaudet, “The Department of Administrative Hearings for the City of Chicago: A New Method of Municipal Code Enforcement” (1998) 18 Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judges, 89 at 98.

[283] Tait, note 266 at 12; Archibald, Jull & Roach, note 6 at 15-1; Paul Baker, “Monetary Penalties are the Newest Environmental Enforcement Tool”, The Lawyers Weekly 16:18 (September 1996).

[284] Nadarajah, “note 269 at 115; David Schmeltzer and William Kitzes, “Administrative Penalties Are Here to Stay – But how Should They Be Implemented?” (1977), 26 Am UL Rev 847 at 852; Tait, note 266 at 12, online: The Public Interest Advocacy Centre <www.piac.ca/files/amps.pdf>.

[285] Richard Macrory, “Regulatory Justice: Sanctioning in a post-Hampton World” (May 2006) at 36, online: Restorative Justice Consortium <http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/Better_Regulation/macrory.pdf>.

[286] Macrory, note 285 at 36-39.

[287] RM Brown, “Administrative and Criminal Penalties in the Enforcement of Occupational Health and Safety legislation” (1992), 30:3 Osgoode Hall LJ 691 at 708-710, 732-733.

[288] Brown, note 287 at 710.

[289] Nadarajah, note 269 at 115; Neil Parpworth, Katherine Thompson & Brian Jones, “Environmental Penalties Utilizing Civil Penalties” (2005) JPlL 561 at 581.

[290] Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan, Administrative Penalties Consultation Paper, (June 2009) at 4 online: Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan <http://sklr.sasktelwebhosting.com/adminpens.pdf>.

[291] David J Mullan, Essentials of Canadian Law: Administrative Law (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2001) at 232.

[292] For example, the AMP system created by Saskatchewan’s Forest Resources Management Act does not provide for a hearing and does not set out what the “right to make representations” entails.  In practice, members of the same government department make all decisions.  See Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan, Administrative Penalties Consultation Paper, (June 2009) at 13-14 online: Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan <http://sklr.sasktelwebhosting.com/adminpens.pdf>.

[293] Brown, note 287 at 735.

[294] For example, it has been suggested that where a regulator has the option to pursue both AMPS and prosecutions and there is a general or basket AMP provision created to enforce any or all of the regulations, the maximum amount for the AMP should not exceed 50% of the maximum available fine for a successful prosecution.  See Archibald, Jull & Roach, note 6 at 15-10.

[295] Todd L Archibald, Kenneth E Jull & Kent W Roach, Regulatory and Corporate Liability; From Due Diligence to Risk Management, Student Ed, (Aurora, Ont: Canada Law Book, 2010) at 15-5 [hereafter Archibald, Jull & Roach, Student Ed].

[296] R v Sault Ste Marie, note 25.

[297] Parpworth, Thompson & Jones, note 289 at 575-576; Tait, note 266 at 12.

[298] Tait, note 266 at 13.

[299] Municipal Act, 2001, note 31, s 102.1 reads, in part, as follows:

 

(3)   Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, a municipality may require a person to pay an administrative penalty if the municipality is satisfied that the person has failed to comply with any by-laws respecting the parking standing or stopping of vehicles. 

(4)   Despite subsection (1), the municipality does not have the power to provide that a person is liable to pay an administrative penalty in respect of the failure to comply with by-laws respecting parking, standing or stopping of vehicles until a regulation is made under subsection (3).

 

[300] AMP Regulation, note 274, s 4.

[301] AMP Regulation, note 274, s 8(4).

[302] AMP Regulation, note 274, s 9.

[303] AMP Regulation, note 274, s10.

[304] Vaughan AMP By-law, note 33.

[305] Stan Berger, “Report into Administrative Monetary Penalites (AMPS) for Parking Infractions,” (Prepared for the Law Commission of Ontario, 11 June 2010) at 11-12. 

[306] A draft Parking Administrative Penalty System By-law was on the agenda of the Oshawa’s Finance and Administration Committee for 20 January 2011 and on 31 January 2011, it received approval of the Oshawa City Council.

[307]Brendon, note 125.

[308] See eg City of Toronto Parking Ticket Cancellation Guidelines, May 2010, online: City of Toronto <http://www.toronto.ca/pay-toronto-tickets/pdf/cancellation_guidelines.pdf>.

[309] Justices of the Peace receive approximately $115,000 per year in salary.  Ontario Ministry of Finance, Public Sector Salary Disclosure 2010, online: Ontario Ministry of Finance <http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/2010/judiciary10.html>.

[310] AMP Regulation, note 274, s 3(3).

[311] Brendon, note 125.

[312] See Toronto City Council, Decision Document: item GM31.12 (8 June 2010), online: City of Toronto <http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/cc/decisions/2010-06-08-cc50-dd.htm>.

[313] R v Pontes, note 207 at para 26.

[314] R v Pontes, note 207 at para 26.

[315] Transport Robert, note 184.

[316] Transport Robert, note 184 at para 24.

[317] Transport Robert, note 184 at paras 27-28.

[318] Lavallee, note 21.

[319] RSA 2000, c 29.

[320] Lavallee, note 21 at paras 28-29.

[321] Lavallee v Alberta (Securities Commission), 2010 CanLII 39752 (SCC).

[322] R v Wigglesworth, 1987 CarswellSask 385 [hereafter Wigglesworth].

[323] Archibald, Jull & Roach, Student Ed, note 295 at 15-38.

[324] Wigglesworth, note 322 at para.31.

[325] Wigglesworth, note 322 at para 32.

[326] Wigglesworth, note 322 at para 32.

[327] Wigglesworth, note 322 at para 33.

[328] Martineau v MNR, 2004 SCC 81, [2004] 3 SCR 737 [hereafter Martineau].

[329] Martineau, note 328 at paras 23 – 24.

[330] Martineau note 328 at para 31.

[331] In R v Cartaway 2004 CarswellBC 844, the Supreme Court of Canada examined whether British Columbia’s Securities Commission could consider general deterrence when issuing an administrative penalty and held that that it could. See also Archibald, Jull & Roach, Student Ed, note 295 at 15-43 - 15-44 who caution that this case does not represent the Supreme Court’s “constitutional stamp of approval” of AMPS, since it did not examine the issue of whether an AMP qualifies as an offence, it does not engage in an analysis of the Martineau criteria and it falls within the internal discipline category so that “one cannot draw conclusions that will apply to more  public AMPs, such as those proposed in the area of competition or telecommunications.” 

[332] Martineau, note 328 at paras 36 – 39.

[333] Martineau, note 328 at paras 30 – 45.

[334] Martineau at para 60.

[335] Lavallee, note 21 at para 21.

[336] Lavallee, note 21 at para 22.

[337] Lavallee, note 21 at para 23.

[338] Lavallee, note 21 at para 25.

[339] AMP Regulation, note 274, s 6.

[340] The view is supported by Stan Berger in his report for this Project.  See Berger, note 305 at 11 and 41.

[341] R v Pontes, note 207 at para 26.

[342] R v Bowman, [2002] O J No 3803, paras 81 – 105.

[343] R v Bowman, note 342 at para 105.

[344] Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, Court Services Division, ICON Database (statistics) [unpublished], Number of Convictions by Sentence Type, Ontario Court of Justice, Provincial Offences Act, Part I and III, 2007 and 2008.  Information relating to this data was supplemented by Sabrina Musilli, Court Services Division, 6 January 2011.

[345] Rules of the Small Claims Court, note 238, r 20.11.

[346] Berger, note 305 at 10-11.

[347] London (City) v. Polewsky, [2005] O.J. No. 4500 (CA), leave to appeal refused 2006 CanLII 18505 (SCC).

[348] Berger, note 305 at 19.

[349] Martineau, note 328 at para 38.

[350] This view is supported by Stan Berger in his report for this Project.  See, Berger, note 305 at 20.

[351] Berger, note 305 at 23.

[352] Effective March 14, 2008, the City of Toronto increased fines relating to parking in disabled parking spots to $450, see “Fines increased for accessible parking in fire routes,” online: City of Toronto <http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/news/parking_fines/index.htm>.

[353] Cardinal v Director of Kent Institution [1985] 2 SCR 643 at para 14.

[354] Knight v Indian Head School Division No 19, [1990] 1 SCR 653 at 682.

[355] Baker, note 209 at paras 21 – 28.

[356] Baker, note 209 at para 18.

[357] AMP Regulation, note 274, s 3(3).

[358] See eg Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan (BC), [1991] 2 SCR 525.

[359] City of Toronto, City of Toronto Parking Ticket Cancellation Guidelines (May 2010), online: <http://www.toronto.ca/pay-toronto-tickets/pdf/cancellation_guidelines.pdf>.

[360] Berger, in his report for this project, note 305, also notes a Brampton Committee Council Report where other grounds were proposed to cancel a parking ticket, at 31.

[361] Vaughan AMP By-law, note 33, s 10.1.

[362] AMP Regulation, note 274, s 8(2).

[363] City of Vaughan, by-law No 157-2009, A By-law to establish the position of Screening Officer and Hearings Officer and to appoint persons as Screening Officers and Hearings Officers, (14 April 2009), ss 3 and 5.

[364] Building Code Act, 1992, SO 1992, c 23, s 3.

[365] Archibald, Jull & Roach, Student Ed, note 295 at 15-5.

[366] Indian Act, RSC c I-5, s 81(1)(b).

[367] E-mail from John C Domm, Chief of Police, Rama Police Services to Mohan Sharma, MAG LCO Counsel in Residence, Law Commission of Ontario (14 January 2011).

[368] AMP Regulation, note 274, s 10.

[369] POA, note 1, s 12.

[370] POA, note 1, s 61.

[371] POA, note 1, s 56.

[372] POA, note 1, s 72.

[373] POA, note 1, s 91.

[374] POA, note 1, s 58.

[375] POA, note 1, s 59.

[376] POA, note 1, s 60; see also Costs, RRO 1990, Reg 945.

[377] POA, note 1, s 60.1.

[378] POA, note 1, s 66.

[379] POA, note 1, s 68.

[380] POA, note 1, s 69(2).

[381] POA, note 1, s 69(6).

[382] POA, note 1, ss 69(14), (16). 

[383] See R v Wu, note 99 where the concept of debtor’s prison for those unable to pay fines was strongly disapproved by the court. As per Justice Binnie at para 3, “the purpose of imposing imprisonment in default of payment is to give serious encouragement to offenders with the means to pay a fine to make payment. Genuine inability to pay a fine is not a proper basis for imprisonment.”

[384] POA, note 1, s 69(15).

[385] POA, note 1, s 67; see also, Fine Option Program, RRO 1990, Reg 948.

[386] Criminal Code, note 4, s 718 to 718.2.

[387] Public Heath Act, note 24.

[388] EPA, note 28 s 188.1.

[389] Archibald, Jull & Roach, Student Ed, note 295 at 12-9 to 12-10.

[390] R v Fraser Inc 1993 CarswellNB 442 at para 89.

[391] Honourable Mr Justice Rick Libman, "Sentencing Purposes and Principles for Provincial Offences," (Research Paper prepared for the Law Commission of Ontario, Summer 2010) at 38-39 [hereafter Libman Research Paper]; See also Verhulst, note 186 at 282; See also Archibald, Jull & Roach, note 6 at 12-9.

[392] Verhulst, note 186 at 282.

[393] Archibald, Jull & Roach, Student Ed, note 295 at 12-10; Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 62-63 (under subsections 131(1) and 139(1) an appeal can only be brought to the OCA where it determines that “it is essential in the public interest or for the due administration of justice that leave be granted”).

[394] R v Cotton Felts, 1982 CarswellOnt 1235 [hereafter Cotton Felts].

[395] Cotton Felts, note 394 at para 19.

[396] Cotton Felts, note 394 at para 22.

[397] Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 65.

[398] Verhulst, note 186; Archibald, Jull & Roach, Student Ed, note 295 at c 12; Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 38-39; See also the Law Reform Commission of Canada, Sentencing in Environmental Cases (Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1985) at 6 (the LRCC notes that there is no consensus as to what principles or factors should be taken into account and what weight to give those principles or factors when sentencing an environmental matter).

[399] Verhulst, note 186; Archibald, Jull & Roach, Student Ed, note 295 at c 12; Libman Research Paper, note 391; John D. Wilson, “Re-thinking Penalties for Corporate Environmental Offenders: A View of the Law Reform Commission of Canada’s Sentencing in Environmental Cases” (1986) 31 McGill L J 313 at 325.

[400] Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 87-131.

[401] R v Ellis Don, [1987] OJ 1669, 1987 CarswellOnt 3264 (Dist Ct).

[402] R v Ellis-Don, 1990 CarswellOnt 64.

[403] Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 93.

[404] R v Henry Heynick Construction Ltd [1999] OJ No 238.

[405] R v Inco Ltd, [1998] OJ No 2322.

[406] R v Inco Ltd, [1999] OJ No 464, paras 54-63.

[407] R v Inco Ltd, [2000] OJ No 1868 (CA).

[408] Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 94-100.

[409] R v. Browning Arms Co, [1973] OJ No 1308 (Ontario General Sessions of the Peace Court) at para 2 (QL).

[410] R v. Browning Arms Co, [1974] OJ No 502 (QL).

[411] R v Epson, [1987] OJ No 2708 (Ont Dist Ct) (QL); appealed OJ No 1003 (QL).

[412] R v Total Ford Sales Ltd, [1987] OJ No 1421 (QL).

[413] R v Bata Industries Ltd, [1992] OJ No 236 (QL).

[414] R v. Browning Arms Co [1993] OJ No 1679 (QL).

[415] Verhulst, note 186.

[416] Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 86.

[417] Verhulst, note 186; Archibald, Jull & Roach, Student Ed, note 295 at 12:40; Libman Research Paper, note 391.

[418] Verhulst, note 186 at 282.

[419] Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, Taking Responsibility: Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General on its Review of Sentencing, Conditional Release and Related Aspects of Corrections (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 1988) at 43.

[420] Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other Acts in consequence thereof, SC 1995, c 22. 

[421] Allan Manson, “The Reform of Sentencing in Canada” in Don Stuart, RJ Deslisle and Allan Manson, eds, Towards a Clear and Just Criminal Law (Toronto: Thomason Canada Ltd, 1999) 457 at 460.

[422] Sections 718.01 and 718.02 are not reproduced as they relate to specific sections of the Criminal Code.

[423] Dale E Ives, “Inequality, Crime and Sentencing: Borde, Hamilton and the Relevance of Social Disadvantage in Canadian Sentencing Law” (2004) 30 Queen’s LJ 114 at 118; Anthony Doob, “Punishment in Late-Twentieth Century Canada: An Afterword” in Carolyn Strange ed, Qualities of Mercy: Justice, Punishment and Discretion (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1996) at 168; Allan Manson, “The Reform of Sentencing in Canada” in Don Stuart, RJ Deslisle and Allan Manson, eds, Towards a Clear and Just Criminal Law (Toronto: Thomson Canada Ltd, 1999) 457 at 472; Kenneth E Jull, “Reserving Rooms in Jail: A Principled Approach” (1999) 42 Crim LQ 67 at 77-79; Andrew J Ashworth, “Sentencing Reform Structures” (1992) 16 Crime and Just 181 at 189.

[424] Verhulst, note 186 at 55.

[425] Public Health Act, note 24, c 28.

[426] Verhulst, note 186 at 283.

[427] Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 131.

[428] Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 131.

[429] Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 283.

[430] Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 284.

[431] Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 284.

[432] Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 284.

[433] The Financial Services Authority, “Principles-based regulation: focusing on the results that matter” (April 2010), online: The Financial Services Authority <http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/principles.pdf>.

[434] Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 284.

[435] Verhulst, note 186 at 284; Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 158.

[436] Verhulst, note 186 at 284-285.

[437] Verhulst, note 186 at 286.

[438] Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 162.

[439] Offence Act, RSBC 1996, c 338.

[440] Verhulst, note 186 at 286.

[441] Verhulst, note 186 at 286.

[442] Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 172-173; Allan Manson, “The Reform of Sentencing Law” in Don Stuart, RJ Delisle and Allan Manson, eds, Towards a Clear and Just Criminal Law (Toronto: Thomson Canada Ltd, 1999) 457 at 472; Kenneth E Jull, “Reserving Rooms in Jail: A Principled Approach” (1999) 42 Crim LQ 67 at 77-79.

[443] Verhulst, note 186 at 287.

[444] Ayers & Braithwaite, note 213 at 25.

[445] Verhulst, note 186 at 288-289; See also Archibald, Jull & Roach, Student Ed, note 295 at 12-2 (the authors also believe that the courts should look at restorative and remedial remedies first before progressing to deterrence, although they add that these values should not trump deterrence).

[446] Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 175.

[447] Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 177; Verhulst, note 186 at 289.

[448] Verhulst, note 186 at 288-289.

[449] Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 176.

[450] Richard Johnstone, “From Fact to Fiction- Rethinking OHS Enforcement” (Working Paper 11) (Paper presented to the Australian OHS Regulation for the 21st Century Conference, National Research Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Regulations & National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, Gold Coast, 20-22 July 2003). 

[451] Ellen Baar et al, Positive Compliance Programs: Their Potential as Instruments for Regulatory Reform (Canada: Department of Justice, 1991) at 20, 24.

[452] See also Archibald, Jull & Roach, Student Ed, note 295 at 12-1 and 12-2.

[453] Ayers & Braithwaite, note 213 at 22.

[454] Verhulst, note 186 at 290-291.

[455] Verhulst, note 186 at 291.

[456] Verhulst, note 186 at 291; Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 182-183.

[457] Verhulst, note 186.

[458] R v CAM [1996] SCJ No 28 at para 81 (QL).

[459] Verhulst, note 186 at 292.

[460] Ayers & Braithwaite, note 213 at 19.

[461] Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 198.

[462] Verhulst, note 186 at 286.

[463] Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 204.

[464] POA, note 1, s 72(1), (7).

[465] See eg New Brunswick’s Provincial Offences Procedure Act, SNB 1987, c P-22.1, s 74(3)(a); British Columbia’s Offence Act RSBC 1996, c 338, s 89(3)(a) which states that where a judge makes a suspended sentence, s/he may specify as a condition of recognizance that the defendant make restitution and reparation to any person aggrieved or injured from the commission of the offence. 

[466] Drinkwalter & Ewart, note 2 at 245.

[467] See eg British Columbia Public Health Act, note 24, s 107(1)(d); New Brunswick Provincial Offences Procedure Act, SNB 1987, c P-22.1, s 74(3)(b).

[468] In R v Wu, note 99 at para 52, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that the trial judge would have ordered the defendant to enroll in community service had a fine option program been in place in Ontario.

[469] Libman Research Paper, note 391 at 220.

[470] See eg British Columbia Public Health Act, note 24, s 107(1)(d) that limits community service terms to up to 3 years.

[471] Fisheries Act, RSC 1995, c F-14.

[472] Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, ss 738, 732.1(3.1).

[473] See eg Alberta’s Provincial Offences Procedure Act, RSA 2000, c P-34, s 8(1) [Provincial Offences Procedure Act (Alta)], which authorizes an award of up to $2,000 as compensation for the victim’s loss. If the amount awarded is not paid within the time ordered by the justice, the victim may file the order and have it entered as a judgment in the Court of Queen’s bench where it is enforceable in the same manner as if it were a judgment rendered against the defendant in the Court of Queen’s bench in civil proceedings: s 8(2).

[474] Archibald, Jull & Roach, Student Ed, note 295 at 12-2.

[475] Criminal Code, note 4, ss 722, 722.1, 722.2.

[476] R v Hutchings, [2004] OJ No 3950 (QL); R v Trigiani, [2000] OJ No 5872 (CJ) (QL), aff’d, [2001] OJ No 6111 (SCJ) (QL).

[477] Norm Keith, “Sentencing the Corporate Offender: From Deterrence to Corporate Social Responsibility” 2010 56 CLQ 294 at 296.

[478] P Puri, “Sentencing the Criminal Corporation” (2001) 39 Osgoode Hall L J 611 at 614.

[479] John Swaigen and David Estrin, Environment on Trial: A Guide to Ontario Environmental Law and Policy, 3rd ed (Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications Ltd, 1993) at 454.

[480] Keith, note 477 at 301, 313.

[481] Ayers & Braithwaite, note 213 at 22-25.

[482] Ayers & Braithwaite, note 213 at 25.

[483] Ayers & Braithwaite, note 213 at 22.

[484] Archibald, Jull & Roach, note 6 at 12-5.

[485] See Libman Research Paper, note 391at 182 for examples of other types of creative probationary terms that might be imposed by a court when sentencing a corporation.

[486] Criminal Code, note 4, s 2.  “organization” means

(a) a public body, body corporate, society, company, firm, partnership, trade union or municipality, or

(b) an association of persons that

(i) is created for a common purpose,

(ii) has an operational structure, and

(iii) holds itself out to the public as an association of persons;

 

[487] Keith, note 477 at 299.

[488] Verhulst, note 186 at 293.

[489] Eg, in R. v. Virk, [2002] OJ No 4102 at para 56, the court said where there is a mens rea element in a regulatory offence, and thus some degree of moral blameworthiness or fault, this has “significance for sentencing” and should be reflected in the court’s disposition, since such offences are “much more serious and therefore more comparable to criminal offences than to public welfare offences.”

[490] Court Services Division, Ministry of the Attorney General, ICON Database (statistics) [unpublished]. Some examples of provincial or regulatory offences which may lead to arrest and detention include: speed racing or stunt driving offences arising under s 172 of the Highway Traffic Act, RSO 1990, c H 8; environmental protection offences arising under s 186 of the Environmental Protection Act, RSO 1990, c E.19; and consumer protection offences arising under s 116 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 30, Sched A.

[491] Drinkwalter & Ewart, note 2 at 422.

[492] Segal & Libman, note 52 at 3; POA, note 1, s 24(1)(a)(iii). See also: R v Bennett, [2001] OJ No 436 (CJ), in particular para 30.  We note, however, s 54 of the POA which allows an arrest warrant where a defendant fails to appear at a hearing.

[493] POA, note 1, s 149(1).

[494] POA, note 1, s 149(2).

[495] POA, note 1, c P 33, s 150(1).

[496] Stewart, note 1 at 227.

[497] POA, note 1, s 150(3).

[498] Stewart, note 1 at 227. The rungs, in order, are: release on an undertaking; release on a recognizance; where available, release with sureties and/or cash bail; or, a detention order.

[499] Drinkwalter & Ewart, note 2 at 422-423.

[500] R v Banka, [1999] OJ No 5646 (Prov Div) (QL).

[501] Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c F.3, s 46.

[502] Banka, note 500 at para 16.

[503] Banka, note 500 at para 16.

[504] See The Honourable Justice Gary T Trotter, The Law of Bail in Canada, 3d ed (Toronto: Carswell, 2010) at 1-6-8.

[505] Drinkwalter & Ewart, note 2 at iv.

[506] See eg R v Hall (2002), 4 CR (6th) 197 (SCC); Trotter, note 504 at 1-33-36.     

[507] R v Hall (2002), 4 CR (6th) 197 (SCC).

[508] R v Hall, note 507 at para 31.

[509] R v Hall, note 507 at para 27.

[510] See eg R v Thompson (2004), 21 CR (6th) 209 (Ont SCJ); R v B(A) (2006), 204 CCC (3d ed) 490 (Ont SCJ); R v Heyden (2009), [2009] OJ No 2492, 2009 ONCA 494; see also discussion in Trotter, note 504 at 3-48-53.

[511] See eg R v BS (2007), [2007] OJ No 3046, 2007 ONCA 560.

[512] R v BS (2007), [2007] OJ No 3046, 2007 ONCA 560 at para 9; see also R. v. Stevenson, [2007] OJ No 1955, 2007 ONCA 378 at para 7.

[513] The Honourable Justice Gary T Trotter, “Bail in Canada: Reflections on Reform” in Don Stuart, RJ Delisle and Allan Manson, eds, Towards a Clear and Just Criminal Law: A Criminal Reports Forum (Toronto: Carswell, 1999) at 415.

[514] Law Reform Commission of Canada, Compelling Appearance, Interim Release and Pre-Trial Detention (Working Paper 57) (Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Service, 1988) at 27.

[515] Louis P Strezos, “Section 515(10)(c) and the Criminal Code: Resurrecting the Unconstitutional Denial of Bail” (1988) 11 CR (5th) 43 at 55.

[516] See Cheryl Marie Webster, Anthony N Doob and Nicole M Myers, “The Parable of Ms Baker: Understanding Pre-Trial Detention in Canada” (2009) 21 Current Issues Crim Just 79; see also Sanchez v Ontario (Superintendent of the Metropolitan Toronto West Detention Centre), 1996 CarswellOnt 45, 34 CR R (2d) 368 (Ont CA).

[517] Martin L Friedland, Detention Before Trial: A Study of Cases Tried in the Toronto Magistrates’ Courts (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965) at 110.

[518] See Margaret Gittens and David Cole (Co-Chairs), Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1995); Anthony N Doob, Race, Bail and Imprisonment (an unpublished study for the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System, 1994); The Honourable Murray Sinclair, Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry in Manitoba (Winnipeg,  Manitoba, 1991); John S. Goldkamp, “Bail: Discrimination and Control” (1984) 16 Criminal Justice Abstracts 103; National Council on Welfare, Justice and the Poor (2000), online: National Council on Welfare <http://www.ncwcnbes.net/documents/researchpublications/

OtherPublications/2000Report-JusticeAndThePoor/ReportENG.htm>.

[519] R v Morales, [1992] SCJ 98 (SCC) at para 39.

[520] R Ouimet (Chair), Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections: Towards Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1969) at 11.

[521] Clifford Chatterton, Bail: Law and Practice (London: Butterworths, 1986) at 143.

[522] R v Desroches (1986), 57 OR (2d) 378, 30 CCC (3d) 191 (Dist Ct).

[523] Desroches, note 522 at 192.

[524] Trotter, note 504 at 6-25.

[525] For a discussion of these requirements, see Trotter, note 504 at 6-21-38. The requirement to carry release documents as a bail condition has been described as contentious. It has been argued that it can be used as a mechanism for enforcement officials to harass an accused person. 

[526] See Football (Disorder) Act 2000 (c 25)(United Kingdom); R v Skordas (2001) 290 AR 191 (Alta Prov Ct); R v Hammond (2009), 2009 CarswellAlta 181 (Alta Prov Ct); R v Weavers (2009), 2009 ONCJ 437, 2009 CarswellOnt 5528 (Ont CJ).

[527] R v Morales, [1992] SCJ 98 (SCC) at para 35.

[528] R v GCK [2003] SJ No 705, 59 WCB (2d) 275; R v Bain (2009), 2009 CarswellOnt 4965 (Ont SCJ).

[529] R v Sexton (1976), 1976 CarswellNfld 1, 12 Nfld & PEIR 197 (Nfld Dist Ct) at paras 54-57; R v Saunter (2006) Carswell Alta 2531, 2006 ABQB 808 at paras 17-18.

[530] R v Legere (1995), 95 CCC ( 3d ed) 555 (Ont CA).

[531] Keenan v Stalker (1979), 57 CCC (2d) 267 (Que CA), Lamer JA (as he was then):

 

At this stage of events [when an accused is awaiting trial], the nature of the functions of the Judge differs greatly from that of determining sentence. The accused is presumed innocent. Society did not intend to give itself the right to invade the private life of the accused to the same extent that it recognizes it has in the case of someone whose marginality (‘marginalité’) has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (at 277).

 

[532] JW Raine and MJ Wilson, “The Imposition of Conditions in Bail Decisions: From Summary Punishment to Better Behaviour on Remand” (1996), 35 Howard Journal 256 at 258-9.

[533] Stewart, note 1 at 228.

[534] See Re Degerness and the Queen (1980), 57 CCC (2d) 535: it would amount to review and contrary to the principle of stare decisis for a court exercising provincial jurisdiction to conduct a bail hearing for an accused already detained by a superior court on a more serious criminal charge (at 536).  

[535] Law Reform Commission of Canada, Compelling Appearance, Interim Release and Pre-Trial Detention (Working Paper 57) (Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Service, 1988) at 62-63.

[536] Trotter, note 504 at 6-36.; see also R v Kwame (1974), 60 Cr App R 65 (CA) at 69-70; R v Sharma (1992), 71 CCC ( 3d ed) 184 (SCC) at 383-384 [Lamer CJC in dissent].

[537] See Alec Samuels, “No Driving as a Requirement or Condition of Bail,” [1988] Crim L R 739; see also Tamsin McMahon, “Defiant and Deadly: Keeping Suspended Drivers Off the Road is a Losing Battle,” Waterloo Region Record (9 September 2008) A1.

[538] See Trotter, note 504 at 6-28.

[539] POA, note 1.

[540] BP Block, “Bail Conditions: Neither Logical nor Lawful” (1990) 154 JP 83.

[541] Trotter, note 504 at 6-23-24.

[542] For example, BP Block, “Bail Conditions: Neither Logical nor Lawful” (1990) 154 JP 83 at 84 states:

 

They are all too often made by justices who want to grant bail but who do not wish to appear too soft, or do not want the defendant to think he has got bail too easily, or who want to make some concession to a prosecutor who has opposed bail, none of which are motives related to the reasons for withholding bail.”

 

Other researchers have found that under these circumstances, defence counsel is unlikely to challenge a decision to impose bail conditions for fear that the defendant will be remanded into custody instead.  See eg Anthea Hucklesby, “The Use and Abuse of Conditional Bail” (1994) 33 The Howard Journal 258 at 266.

[543] R v Bishop, 2007 ONCJ 441 (CanLII) at para 22.

[544] An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and Certain Other Acts, SC 1997, c 18, s 41

[545] James A. Fontana & David Keeshan, The Law of Search and Seizure in Canada, 7th ed  (Markham: LexisNexis Canada Inc, 2007) at 974.

[546] R v Morelli [2010] SCJ No 8 (SCC) at para 105.

[547] Sedona Canada Principles, online: https://lexum.com/e-discovery/documents/SedonaCanadaPrinciples01-08.pdf.

[548] See eg Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, ss 489, 487.01, 487.02.  See also Occupational Health and Safety Act, RSO 1990, c O.1, s 56.1(2).

[549] Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz v Canada, 2002 SCC 61, [2002] 3 SCR 209 at para 36 [hereafter Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz].
[550] Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz, note 549 at para 44.

[551] Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz, note 549 at para 49.

[552] Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz, note 549 at para 49.

[553] Libman, note 5 at 10-56.

[554] Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz, note 549 at para 35.
[555] See eg Pritchard v Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2003 CanLII 8701 (Ont CA) at para 27.

[556] Professional Regulation Committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada, Report to Convocation, January 27, 2011, online: Law Society of Upper Canada <http://www.lsuc.on.ca/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147484225>. The guidelines were derived from the Federation of Law Societies Protocol for Law Office Searches and are included in the Professional Regulation Committee's Report.

[557] Chancey v Dharmadi 2007 CarswellOnt 4664 at para 39 (Ont SCJ – Master Dash) (WLeC).

[558] Chancey, note 557 at para 37.

[559] Chancey, note 557 at para 34.

[560] Thomas Claridge, “Paralegal Communication Found Privileged” The Lawyer’s Weekly 27:13 (10 August  2007), online: Capilano University <http://www.capilanou.ca/Assets/paralegal/pdf/paralegal-lawyersweekly.pdf>.

[561] Law Society of Upper Canada, By-law 4, s 6(2) states that paralegals may represent clients before the Small Claims Court on POA matters, on certain summary conviction offences, and before administrative tribunals.

[562] Travel Industry Act, SO 2002, c C-30, Sch D.

[563] Evidence Act, RSO 1990, c E .23, s 33(4).

[564] Canada Evidence Act, RSC 1985 c C-5, s 29(6).

[565] R v Webster (1981) 15 MPLR 60 (Ont Dist Ct).

[566] R v Mardave Construction (1990) Ltd, 1995 CarswellOnt 4174 (Ont CJ) (WLeC).

[567] R v Cancoil Thermal Corp (1988) COHSC 169 (Ont Prov Ct).

[568] Law Reform Commission of Canada, Report on Recodifying Criminal Law (Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1987) Report 31 at 28: defences of a procedural nature were left to be dealt with in a proposed Code of Criminal Procedure.

[569] Don Stuart, Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise, 5th ed (Scarborough: Thomson Carswell, 2007) at 624.

[570] Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada, 2004 SCC 4, [2004] 1 SCR 76.
[571] Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada, note 570 at para 204.

[572] American Law Institute, Model Penal Code: Proposed Official Draft (Philadelphia: The American Law Institute, 1962), s 2.12.

[573] Canadian Bar Association, Criminal Code Recodification Task Force Report (18 November 1992) [unpublished, submitted to the Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee of Justice on Recodification of the General Part of the Criminal Code].

[574] Courts of Justice Act, note 120, s 109(2).

[575] R v Vellone 2009 ONCJ 150 (Ont CJ). 

[576] R v Vellone [2009] OJ No 1607 (Ont CA in Chambers). 

[577] POA, note 1, s 11(1).   See also s 19 which is a similar provision for reopening Part II convictions. Both of these sections will be amended once legislative amendments are proclaimed by the Good Government Act 2009, c 33, Sched 4, however they do not impose additional restrictions on reopening which is the reform that was proposed during our consultation.

[578] POA, note 1, s 11(2).  

[579] 2009 ONCJ 65; R v Hargan, 2009 CarswellOnt 1002 (Ont CJ) (WLeC).

[580] CBC News, “Unpaid traffic tickets in Ontario Total $1B” (May 17, 2010), online: CBC News < http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/05/17/ont-unpaid-tickets.html >.

[581] POA, note 1, s 68.

[582] POA, note 1 s 69(2).

[583] Municipal Act, 2001, note 31, s 441.1.

[584] Edmonton Journal, “Province to Expand Crackdown on Unpaid Tickets” (5 April 2007), online: Edmonton Journal < http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/cityplus/story.html?id=e5fa7c13-0a73-454d-adbb-bbb05bf437a0&k=33430 >.

[585] Edmonton Journal, note 584.changeme

[586] See generally Government of Alberta Justice and Attorney General, Fine Enforcement Program, online: Government of Alberta Justice and Attorney General <http://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/fines/Pages/default.aspx > .

[587] LCO conversation with staff at the Fines Enforcement Office, Alberta Justice (4 November 2010) where it was reported that over $2.7 million has been recovered on unpaid traffic tickets since 2006, representing approximately 33% of the total amount recovered by that office.

[588] Government of Saskatchewan, “New Changes Improve Fine Collection Process in Saskatchewan” (News Release, February 12 2008), online: Government of Saskatchewan <www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=bd8eef68-8581-40d1-86f4-fce3c9d227f1>

[589] Service Canada, GST/HST Credit, online: Service Canada http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/goc/gst_credit.shtml.

[590] The Ontario Association of Police Services Board has called upon the Attorney General to improve the enforcement of POA fines, and it has also resolved to work with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Municipal Finance Officers’ Association, The Municipal Court Managers’ Association and other entities with an interest in improved fine enforcement mechanisms.  See Ontario Association of Police Services Board, Resolutions Package 2010, 2010 Annual General Meeting (unpublished: April 30 2010), online: Ontario Association of Police Services Board <www.oapsb.ca/resolutions/2010/05/06/resolutions_2010-agm_final2.doc>

[591] Good Government Act 2009, note 9, s 1(49).

[592] Statutes of Ontario, 2002, chapter 18, Schedule A, subsection 15(1), creating new subsections 150(8) and 150(9) to the POA.

[593] Ontario, Working Group for Provincial Offences Act Streamlining Review, Provincial Offences

Act Streamlining Review: Consultation Paper (Toronto: Working Group for POA Streamlining, 29

January 2009) online: Law Society of Upper Canada,

www.lsuc.on.ca/media/apr0109_poa_streamlining_consultation.pdf

[594] Good Government Act, 2009, note 9, made numerous amendments to the Provincial Offences Act.

 

 

Previous
First Page
Table of Contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

Translate

English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish

 

Completed Projects