Affidavit of Service in Provincial Offenses Proceedings: 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.
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:Provincial Offenses]] | ||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/2fdd0 Durham (Regional Municipality) v. Verma, 2011 ONCJ 19 (CanLII)]== | ==[http://canlii.ca/t/2fdd0 Durham (Regional Municipality) v. Verma, 2011 ONCJ 19 (CanLII)]== | ||
Latest revision as of 18:01, 13 December 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.
