Insufficient Particulars in a Report to a Justice (POA)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-05-19
CLNP Page ID:	1660
Page Categories:	Animal Control (POA)
Citation:	Insufficient Particulars in a Report to a Justice (POA), CLNP 1660, <44>, retrieved on 2024-05-19
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2021/09/23

R. v Vince, 2016 ONSC 2892 (CanLII)

[1] The accused, Christopher Scott Vince, was released on a series of recognizances with respect to various charges, commencing Jan 26, 2015. For the purposes of this decision, two are important. One was entered into on April 27, 2015 (the first recognizance). In it, the accused and one surety, James McIsack, were each liable for $2,000.00 with no cash deposit. One term was that the accused was not to communicate with Cindy Vince.

...

[8] Defence counsel took the position that:

• The court lacked jurisdiction over the matter because the Certificate of Default was completed on the second recognizance, which was wrong, instead of on the first recognizance, which would have been correct, and

• Even if there was jurisdiction, the Certificate of Default was insufficiently particularized.

...

[11] So, s. 770 (1) is clear about which recognizance is involved. It’s speaks of non- compliance of a condition of “the Recognizance” that a person is bound by, not non- compliance with a or any recognizance. In the event of non-compliance with the recognizance, a certificate in Form 33 is to be endorsed on the recognizance. The four specific things listed in s. 770 (1) (a) through (d) are to be set out in the certificate. These four things relate to the conditions of the recognizance that was breached, and its principal and sureties.

[12] Where a recognizance has been endorsed with a certificate pursuant to s. 770, s. 771 then provides for the hearing of an application for forfeiture of the recognizance. The clerk of the court is to serve a notice on each principal and surety named in the recognizance, requiring them to appear at the hearing to show cause why the recognizance should not be forfeited.

...

[16] I conclude that the completion of the Certificate of Default on a recognizance other than the recognizance that was breached leaves the court with no jurisdiction to order estreatment in this matter. Therefore, the crown’s application for estreatment is dismissed.

[17] Having so concluded, it is not necessary nor appropriate to analyse whether the certificate was insufficiently particularized, aside from not being on the relevant recognizance.