The Regional Municipality of York v Rocco Carnavale et al.
Unreported
The Regional Municipality of York v. Rocco Carnavale et al.
CV-21-3334-000
Superior Court of Justice — Justice M.L. Lack | October 14, 2021
Background
York Region had a massive problem on their hands. Between March 16 and September 11, 2020, they issued 109 Certificates of Offence for red light camera violations under s. 144(18.1) of the Highway Traffic Act. But when these tickets reached the Justices of the Peace for review, every single one got quashed with the same reason: "filing date is past 30 days."
The COVID-19 pandemic had suspended various court limitation periods through Ontario Regulation 73/20 under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. York Region's position was that the Justices of the Peace made a legal error by not recognizing that the normal time limits for serving and filing certificates didn't apply during the suspension period. With 109 quashed tickets and 7,311 more certificates sitting in limbo, York Region applied to Superior Court for mandamus — essentially asking a higher court to order the Justices of the Peace to reverse their decisions.
Issues
- Whether service of notice should be dispensed with for the 109 respondents
- Whether the Justices of the Peace erred in law by quashing the certificates
- Whether mandamus was the appropriate remedy
The COVID Suspension Period
Justice Lack found that the Justices of the Peace made a clear error in law. Under O. Reg. 73/20, limitation periods related to commencing proceedings were suspended between March 16 and September 14, 2020 — exactly when these offences occurred. The regulation was later extended, meaning the normal 30-day rule for serving Offence Notices and 7-day rule for filing Certificates of Offence didn't apply during this period.
The court noted that all 109 certificates were properly served and filed within the suspended time period. By failing to recognize the regulatory suspension, the Justices of the Peace "committed jurisdictional error or an error in law in quashing these Certificates of Offence." Justice Lack relied on cases like Kipp v. Attorney General (Ontario) and R. v. Beason to conclude that mandamus was available even for errors in law, not just jurisdictional errors.
Service Dispensed With
The court also dispensed with serving notice of the application on all 109 respondents, finding it would be "impractical" under Rule 16.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Since the respondents were required to respond to their Offence Notices within 15 days and none had responded even after extended timelines, the court found they weren't entitled to further notice of the mandamus proceeding.
Key Takeaway
Emergency regulations can suspend normal POA time limits, and Justices of the Peace must recognize these suspensions when reviewing certificates.
This case shows that even when tickets appear to be filed "late," there may be regulatory exceptions that keep them valid. It also demonstrates that when lower courts make legal errors in quashing certificates, prosecution authorities can seek mandamus from Superior Court to restore the charges.