Affidavit of Service in Provincial Offenses Proceedings: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Provincial Offenses]] | [[Category:Provincial Offenses]] | ||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/2fdd0 Durham (Regional Municipality) v. Verma, 2011 ONCJ 19 (CanLII)]== | |||
I am mindful of the need for a balance in the application of the P.O.A. given the significant procedural advantages it gives to the prosecution and accordingly the need for careful scrutiny by a Justice to ensure that no injustice is done to a defendant. However I consider it to be an unnecessarily and overly strict interpretation of the P.O.A. to require proof of service to be established only by completion of certification of service on the face of the certificate of offence. Such certification is appropriately considered surplusage when the documentation before the reviewing Justice otherwise establishes service has been effected. | |||
Accordingly the appeal in this matter will be dismissed. | |||
Revision as of 04:21, 4 March 2020
Durham (Regional Municipality) v. Verma, 2011 ONCJ 19 (CanLII)
I am mindful of the need for a balance in the application of the P.O.A. given the significant procedural advantages it gives to the prosecution and accordingly the need for careful scrutiny by a Justice to ensure that no injustice is done to a defendant. However I consider it to be an unnecessarily and overly strict interpretation of the P.O.A. to require proof of service to be established only by completion of certification of service on the face of the certificate of offence. Such certification is appropriately considered surplusage when the documentation before the reviewing Justice otherwise establishes service has been effected.
Accordingly the appeal in this matter will be dismissed.
