A(1) (a) Should the municipalities be required to establish a system of administrative monetary penalties for enforcing by-laws respecting parking, standing or stopping of vehicles?
(b) If so, what should happen to the option to prosecute such offences under Part II of the POA?
(c) If there were no option to prosecute under Part II of the POA, are there any steps that could be taken to facilitate the move from Part II to an AMP system?
A(2) (a) Should AMPs be available for other provincial offences?
(b) If so, which offences should be the priority?
(c) If so, what should happen to the option to prosecute such offences under Part I of the POA?
B(1) (a) Should the POA contain a provision setting out how to determine the classification of an offence as an absolute liability offence, a strict liability offence or a mens rea offence?
(b) If so, what should the substance of that provision be?
C(1) (a) Should the POA contain a provision setting out sentencing purposes and/or sentencing principles?
(b) If so, what should those purposes and/or principles be?
C(2) Should sentencing purposes and/or principles apply only to the sentencing of Part III offences or should they apply to the sentencing of any offence to which the POA applies?
C(3) (a) Should there be more sentencing options available under the POA?
(b) If so, what should those options be?
D(1) Should the Attorney General or his or her agent be able to require a provincial judge to preside in certain types of proceedings? For example, should the Attorney General or his or her agent be able to require a provincial judge to preside in any Part III proceeding?
D(2) (a) Should others be able to require a provincial judge to preside in certain types of proceedings?
(b) Who should those others be and what types of proceedings should be covered?
D(3) Should a judge be required to preside in certain types of proceedings (e.g. Part III proceedings) by operation of law?
E(1) Should the Court of Appeal, the Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Justice have the authority to make their own rules of practice and procedure in proceedings under the POA?
F(1) (a) Can the POA be amended to clarify the defence of due diligence?
(b) If so, how should the POA be amended to clarify this defence?
G(1) Should section 160 of the POA be amended to address the constitutional issues raised by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Lavallee?
G(2) Even if section 160 of the POA is constitutional, should it be amended to better protect solicitor-client privilege?
G(3) What procedure should be followed where a claim of solicitor-client privilege is made in respect of documents that are in the client’s possession?
G(4) Should the procedure applying to documents in possession of a lawyer also apply to documents in the possession of a paralegal licensed to provide legal services in Ontario?
H(1) (a) Should there be a more comprehensive system for youth charged with a provincial offence?
(b) If so, what should the key features of that regime be?
H(2) Should a more comprehensive system remain part of the POA or should it be set out in a separate Act?
I(1) Should the authority to serve a summons under section 39 of the POA be restricted to provincial offences officers?
I(2) If the answer to I(1) is no, who else should be provided with this authority?
J(1) Should section 26 of the POA be amended to specifically include service of corporations outside of Ontario?
J(2) If so, what types of service should be permitted?
K(1) (a) Should the POA set out how a corporation is to be served with a notice of offence or summons in a proceeding commenced by a certificate of offence?
(b) If so, what should the rules for service be?
L(1) Should the default service rule in section 87 of the POA include courier and specified electronic means as permitted methods of service for notices and documents?
L(2) Should the POA adopt the type of approach taken by section 4.1 of the Highway Traffic Act and section 19 of the Photo Card Act, 2008?
M(1) Should the POA list and codify some or all of the defences that are available to a defendant under section 80?
N(1) (a) Should some or all of the organizations that are responsible for prosecutions have the power to stay those prosecutions?
(b) If so, which organizations should be given this authority?
O(1) (a) Should the POA clarify if a decision to quash can be appealed or whether an application must be made to the Superior Court under section 140 to challenge the decision?
(b) If so, should the POA permit the appeal of a decision to quash or should it require an application under section 140?
P(1) (a) Should the application of section 124 to a certificate of offence and a certificate of parking ticket be clarified?
(b) If so, what should the substance of the clarification be?
(c) If so, and given the substance of the clarification, should section 125 continue to apply to section 124?
Q(1) (a) Should the list of persons that receive a notice of constitutional question be expanded where a circumstance described in subsection 109(1) of the Courts of Justice Act arises in a POA proceeding?
(b) If so, who should be added to the list of persons for whom notice is required?
Q(2) (a) Should paragraph 2 of subsection 109(1) of the Courts of Justice Act include acts and omissions of additional parties?
(b) If so, who should those parties be?
R(1) Should the prosecutor be given notice and be permitted to make submissions when a defendant brings a motion to stay a conviction under section 112 of the POA?
S(1) Should subsection 3(4) of the POA be repealed?
S(2) Should the government be encouraged to utilize section 6 of the POA or should it be repealed?
S(3) Should section 9 be amended to make it explicit that a defendant who gives notice of intention to appear in court for the purpose of entering a plea and having a trial of the matter pursuant to section 5 or 5.1 will not be deemed under section 9 to not wish to dispute the charge?
|First Page||Last Page|
|Table of Contents|