Certificate of Offence: Difference between revisions
From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
(Created page with "Category:Provincial Offenses ==[http://canlii.ca/t/232r5 Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay v. Kamenawatamin, 2009 CanLII 15905 (ON SC)]==") |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/232r5 Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay v. Kamenawatamin, 2009 CanLII 15905 (ON SC)]== | ==[http://canlii.ca/t/232r5 Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay v. Kamenawatamin, 2009 CanLII 15905 (ON SC)]== | ||
[6] In R. v. Coté, 1977 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 8 (S.C.C.), at para. 11, the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with the issue of the sufficiency of an information charging an offence under the Criminal Code: | |||
::”… the golden rule is for the accused to be reasonably informed of the transaction alleged against him, thus giving him the possibility of a full defence and a fair trial.” | |||
[7] In my opinion, this golden rule is applicable to the issue of whether a certificate of offence is complete and regular on its face. | |||
[8] In R. v. Wilson, [2001] O.J. No. 4907, (O.C.J.), at para. 20, Livingstone J. concluded that a certificate of offence which is “regular on its face,” must set out: | |||
::1. who is commencing the process – an informant; | |||
::2. who is charged under the process – name of the defendant; | |||
::3. what the process is – statute name and section number; | |||
::4. where and when the allegation arose; and | |||
::5. what the result will be from a conviction from the process – set fine. | |||
Revision as of 01:56, 1 March 2020
Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay v. Kamenawatamin, 2009 CanLII 15905 (ON SC)
[6] In R. v. Coté, 1977 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 8 (S.C.C.), at para. 11, the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with the issue of the sufficiency of an information charging an offence under the Criminal Code:
- ”… the golden rule is for the accused to be reasonably informed of the transaction alleged against him, thus giving him the possibility of a full defence and a fair trial.”
[7] In my opinion, this golden rule is applicable to the issue of whether a certificate of offence is complete and regular on its face.
[8] In R. v. Wilson, [2001] O.J. No. 4907, (O.C.J.), at para. 20, Livingstone J. concluded that a certificate of offence which is “regular on its face,” must set out:
- 1. who is commencing the process – an informant;
- 2. who is charged under the process – name of the defendant;
- 3. what the process is – statute name and section number;
- 4. where and when the allegation arose; and
- 5. what the result will be from a conviction from the process – set fine.
