Certificate of Offence
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
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.
