Deemes 9.1

R v Pilipovic

[1996] O.J. No. 3139

No summary has been written for this decision yet.

Read the decision

R v Sahadeo

[2016] ONCJ 122

R. v. Sahadeo

2016 ONCJ 122
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice P.A. Schreck | March 9, 2016

Background

Anderson Sahadeo was charged with unsafe lane change under section 154(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act following a motor vehicle accident on October 10, 2014. When his trial date arrived on April 22, 2015, Sahadeo didn't show up personally but sent a paralegal to represent him. The paralegal asked for an adjournment because they were missing part of a collision report that had been cut off during fax transmission — disclosure they could have easily obtained in advance.

Justice of the Peace Cotter denied the adjournment request, noting that Sahadeo had known about the disclosure issue beforehand and hadn't given any advance notice. When told the trial would proceed, the paralegal responded: "Thank you, Your Worship... he's instructed me to just walk away from it at this point." The Justice of the Peace then paged Sahadeo, got no response, and entered a conviction without a hearing under section 9.1(2) of the Provincial Offences Act.

Issues

1. Did the Justice of the Peace err in refusing the adjournment?
2. Did the Justice of the Peace err in proceeding under section 9.1(2) of the POA when the defendant had appeared through an agent?

The Section 9.1 Problem

Section 9.1(2) of the POA allows a court to enter a conviction without a hearing only when a defendant "fails to appear at the time and place appointed for trial." The prosecution argued that since the paralegal withdrew after the adjournment was denied, Sahadeo effectively failed to appear. But Justice Schreck on appeal said this interpretation was too broad and dangerous.

The court explained that section 9.1 works by allowing an inference that the defendant has waived their Charter right to a trial — but any waiver of Charter rights must be "clear and unequivocal." When someone shows up but then leaves or declines to participate, that's not the same as simply not showing up at all. In this case, it was obvious Sahadeo wanted to dispute the charge — that's why he sought an adjournment for "crucial" disclosure. You can't infer someone has waived their right to trial when they're actively trying to get a trial date that works for them.

The court also noted that a paralegal, like a lawyer, can only withdraw with the court's permission under R. v. Cunningham. The agent shouldn't have been allowed to just walk away, and the trial should have proceeded even without proper instructions.

Key Takeaway

If you show up to court through an agent, the court cannot use section 9.1(2) to convict you without a hearing, even if your agent withdraws or refuses to participate.

This case shows that courts must interpret section 9.1 strictly because it involves waiving fundamental Charter rights. However, the court was highly critical of both Sahadeo's lack of diligence in obtaining disclosure and his agent's unprofessional conduct in withdrawing without court permission.

Read the decision

R v Singh, Skinderpal

No summary has been written for this decision yet.

Read the decision

R v Stuparayk

[2009] ONCJ 394

R. v. Stuparayk and Firminio

2009 ONCJ 394
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice J.W. Bovard | August 28, 2009

Background

Ana Stuparayk and Bruno Firminio each received tickets for not wearing their seatbelts. Stuparayk was charged with "Driver – Fail to wear complete seat belt assembly contrary to Highway Traffic Act s. 106(3)" and Firminio got "Driver – Fail to wear complete seat belt assembly contrary to Highway Traffic Act s. 106(6)". Both requested trials but failed to show up on their court dates.

Under section 9.1 of the Provincial Offences Act, when you request a trial but don't show up, you're "deemed not to dispute the charge" and the Justice of the Peace can convict you without a hearing — but only if your certificate of offence is "complete and regular on its face." Both defendants were convicted in their absence and appealed, arguing their tickets had fatal errors.

Issues

1. Were the Certificates of Offence "complete and regular on their faces" when they cited incorrect section numbers?
2. Does citing the wrong section number invalidate a certificate under s. 9.1 of the POA?

The Section Number Mismatch Problem

Here's where it gets interesting. Stuparayk's ticket said "Driver" but cited section 106(3), which actually applies to passengers 16 years or older. Firminio's ticket also said "Driver" but cited section 106(6), which doesn't create an offence at all — it lists exemptions from wearing seatbelts (like when driving in reverse or if you have a medical certificate).

Justice Bovard found these weren't minor clerical errors but created genuine confusion. For Stuparayk, was she being charged as a driver or passenger? The consequences matter — insurance companies treat driver violations differently. For Firminio, why would an officer charge someone under a section that provides exemptions rather than creates offences?

The court emphasized that s. 9.1 convictions are "exceptional" because they happen without evidence or a hearing. The Certificate of Offence must be crystal clear because "a premium is rightly placed on the form of the document, since matters of substance are not engaged by s. 9.1." When there's ambiguity, the Justice of the Peace can't play guessing games about what the officer meant.

Key Takeaway

Wrong section numbers on tickets aren't just typos — they can kill your conviction if they create real confusion about what you're actually charged with.

If you're facing a s. 9.1 conviction and notice your ticket cites the wrong section or creates ambiguity about the actual offence, you may have grounds for appeal. The courts take a strict approach to certificate defects in default proceedings.

Read the decision

R v VIOLETIS

[1997] O.J. No. 5491

No summary has been written for this decision yet.

Read the decision