Quash

R v Bertolucci, Wu, Woo and Young

[1995] O.J. No. 4283

R. v. Bertollucci, Wu, Woo and Young

Ontario Court (Provincial Division) Before The Honourable Judge P. Reinhardt | June 23, 1995 | Toronto Charges: Minor Traffic

---

Background

Three separate minor traffic matters — involving respondents Morgan Young, Claudio Bertollucci, and Jim Woo — came before the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) on a Crown appeal. Each matter had been dealt with at first instance by Justice of the Peace C. McCurdy, who on January 19, 1995 quashed all three certificates of offence on the same basis: the issuing officer, Police Officer Henry Gotham, had not placed his name on the offence notice served on the accused. The certificates of offence themselves were properly signed and filled out in all particulars by Officer Gotham. The problem was the offence notice — the document that the accused actually receives and is expected to act on. That document did not disclose the name of the informant. The Crown appealed, arguing the quashing was wrong and the defect could be cured. Judge Reinhardt dismissed the appeal. The Justice of the Peace got it right.

---

Issue

1. Is the failure to place the informant's name on an offence notice a fatal defect that cannot be cured by amendment or particulars at trial?

---

Analysis

The Defect and Why It Cannot Be Cured

The Crown's position was that the absence of the informant's name was an irregularity in form — the kind of defect that sections 35, 90, and 36 of the Provincial Offences Act are designed to address. Section 90 provides that irregularities in form or defects in substance of an offence notice do not affect the validity of a proceeding. Section 36 states that an objection to a certificate for a defect apparent on its face shall be taken by motion to quash, and the court shall not quash unless an amendment or particulars under sections 33, 34, or 35 would fail to satisfy the ends of justice. Judge Reinhardt rejected the Crown's framing. There is a meaningful distinction between defects in the details of the offence — the circumstances, the particulars, the description of conduct — and the absence of the most basic identifying information about who is making the allegation. The informant's name is not a detail of the offence. It is a foundational element of the document itself. The offence notice exists for one purpose: to put the defendant on notice of the case against them and to give them a fair opportunity to respond. A person who receives a notice that does not identify who is informing against them — whose belief and certification is legally necessary for a valid offence notice — has received a document that is, in the court's words, useless for the purposes of the defendant. Sections 33, 34, and 35 of the POA contemplate amendments and particulars that deal with the details of the offence and the circumstances describing where and how it was committed. They do not contemplate the actual addition of the informant's name. That is something so basic, so fundamental to the document's validity, that permitting it to be added at the time of trial would not cure the defect — it would offend the principles of justice that the notice requirement is designed to protect.

The Distinction from Curable Defects

The court acknowledged that the POA provides broad remedial authority to prevent technical objections from derailing valid proceedings. That is sound policy. But the remedial provisions have limits — and those limits exist precisely to protect defendants from being required to respond to charges laid without the minimum formalities that make the process fair. The name of the informant is not a technicality. It is the anchor that connects the certificate, the notice, and the legal process to an identifiable person who stands behind the allegation. Without it, the defendant does not know who swore out the certificate, cannot identify the officer whose observations form the foundation of the charge, and cannot meaningfully prepare a response. Judge Reinhardt agreed with the submissions of counsel for the two represented respondents: this is not something that can properly be cured by particulars at trial. The jurisdiction to amend exists — but in the court's view, all the particulars contemplated by the amendment provisions deal with the details of the offence itself, not the fundamental addition of the informant's identity to what is otherwise an incomplete document.

---

Decision

Appeal dismissed. The decision of Justice of the Peace McCurdy was upheld. The quashing of all three certificates was confirmed. The court was not prepared to permit an amendment to add the informant's name — that basic element — and agreed that the appropriate decision had been that of the Justice of the Peace.

---

Key Takeaways

• The informant's name is a mandatory element of a valid offence notice under the Provincial Offences Act. Its absence is not a curable irregularity — it is a fatal defect.
• The remedial provisions of the POA (ss. 33, 34, 35, 36, 90) address defects in the details and circumstances of the offence — they do not extend to adding the identity of the informant at the time of trial.
• An offence notice that does not identify the informant is useless for the purposes of the defendant — and no amendment or particulars can retroactively make it fair.
• Read alongside Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v. Priscak, this case defines both sides of the certificate validity line: you don't need the Act name on the certificate, but you absolutely need the informant's name on the offence notice.
• For defendants: a missing informant name on an offence notice is a first-line challenge that should be raised immediately by motion to quash under section 36 of the POA — before any other defence is advanced.
• For enforcement officers: sign the notice. Put your name on it. Every time. This case makes clear that omitting that single element hands the defendant a complete answer to the charge before a word of evidence is heard.

Read the decision

R v Gray

Unreported Decision

Read the decision

R v Lall

[1993] O.J. No. 4155

No summary has been written for this decision yet.

Read the decision

R v Mattheos

[2004] O.J. No. 5339

R. v. Mattheos

[2004] O.J. No. 5339
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice B.G. Thomas | November 8, 2004

---

Background

Victor Mattheos was involved in a motor vehicle collision on April 20, 2004. The next day, he received a Part I notice of offence charging him with careless driving under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act. Mattheos filed his intention to appear and request a trial. But then something unusual happened — on April 29, 2004, he received a second notice of offence for the exact same charge arising from the same collision. The Crown never filed the first ticket with the court.

When Mattheos appeared in court with his paralegal, they brought an oral motion to quash the certificate. They argued the Crown had failed to obtain the Attorney General's consent before serving the second notice, as required by section 21 of the Provincial Offences Act. Justice of the Peace Hurst agreed, finding this was an abuse of process and quashing the certificate. The Crown appealed.

Issues

1. Did section 21 of the Provincial Offences Act apply to this situation?
2. Was there an abuse of process that justified quashing the certificate?
3. Did the Crown have a right to appeal the quashing of the certificate?

The Appeal Rights Problem

Justice Thomas agreed with the Crown that section 21 of the Provincial Offences Act didn't apply here. Section 21(2) only requires the Attorney General's consent when a proceeding starts under Part I and then the Crown switches to Part III for the same offence. That's not what happened — the officer simply served a new Part I notice without filing the original certificate.

The court also found there was no abuse of process. Under section 3(1) of the Provincial Offences Act, no proceeding actually commenced until the second certificate was filed, since the first one was never filed with the court. The justice of the peace had erred in both finding an abuse and in quashing rather than staying the proceedings.

But here's the crucial point: even though the justice of the peace was wrong, the Crown still lost the appeal. Why? Because quashing a certificate is not the same as an acquittal, and the Crown can only appeal acquittals under section 135 of the Provincial Offences Act. Since Mattheos was never arraigned, never entered a plea, and was never in jeopardy, this wasn't a final determination. The Crown still had time left in the six-month limitation period to re-lay the charge. Their only remedy was to seek mandamus in Superior Court, not to appeal.

Key Takeaway

The Crown cannot appeal every unfavorable ruling — only actual acquittals after a defendant has been put in jeopardy.

If you successfully bring a motion to quash before entering a plea, the Crown's remedy is usually to start over with a new charge (if time permits) or seek a prerogative writ, not to appeal the decision.

Read the decision

R v Rafael

[1972] 3 OR 238

Regina v. Rafael

[1972] O.J. No. 1842
Ontario Court of Appeal — Gale C.J., McGillivray and Arnup JJ.A. | April 24, 1972

---

Background

Rafael operated an immigration consulting business in Toronto between 1966 and 1971. He promised 24 different people that he would obtain landed immigrant status for them in Canada, charging various fees for his services. Some clients testified that Rafael used language like "I will legalize you," "I will get you landed immigrant status," and in some cases even "guaranteed" he would get them the status they sought. The Crown called 20 witnesses at trial to prove that Rafael had defrauded them through these representations.

Rafael was convicted on a single fraud charge under section 323(1) of the Criminal Code. The indictment alleged that between January 1, 1966 and January 1, 1971, he defrauded "certain persons of certain amounts of money" by promising to obtain landed immigrant status for them. The Crown provided particulars showing 24 individual victims with different dates, locations, and amounts involved.

Issues

1. Was the indictment duplicitous (improperly combining multiple offences into one charge)?
2. Could 24 separate fraudulent acts against different people over five years constitute a "single transaction"?

The Duplicity Problem

The Court of Appeal found that this indictment violated section 510(1) of the Criminal Code, which requires each count to "apply to a single transaction." While previous cases like R. v. Hulan allowed multiple incidents in one charge where there was a common pattern (like repeated sexual assaults), this case was different. Here, 24 different people were defrauded on widely varying dates, at different locations, for different amounts, and involving "quite different representations" to each victim.

The court distinguished cases where continuous theft or repeated similar acts could form one transaction. Rafael's frauds couldn't be "regarded as occurrences which together form a single transaction" because each victim was deceived separately with different promises. The court noted that while separate charges could have been laid for each victim, the real test is whether the evidence shows occurrences within a single transaction — and it didn't.

Key Takeaway

The prosecution can't lump together multiple separate offences into one charge just for convenience.

Even though no objection was raised at trial, the Court of Appeal ruled that a fundamentally flawed indictment can be challenged on appeal. Each criminal charge must relate to a single transaction, and prosecutors who try to bundle unrelated incidents together risk having their entire case thrown out.

Read the decision

R v Saini

Unreported

R. v. Saini [1996] — Judge Martin, Provincial Offences Court (Toronto)

Background

Gurdeep Saini was charged with careless driving under s. 130 of the Highway Traffic Act following a head-on collision on Kipling Avenue. The responding officer served an offence notice but failed to file the certificate with the court within the seven-day window required under Part I of the Provincial Offences Act. With Part I jurisdiction lost, the officer attended the Provincial Prosecutors' office and obtained verbal permission from a prosecutor he knew only as "Wendy" to proceed by way of Part III Information. That conversation was never reduced to writing and nothing appeared on the face of the Information confirming consent had been obtained. The defendant did not attend the trial date, believing the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed. The trial proceeded ex parte and a conviction was entered in his absence. He appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the s. 21(2) consent of the Attorney General or agent was properly obtained and established on the record so as to confer jurisdiction on the court to proceed by way of Part III Information.
2. Whether the identification evidence adduced at the ex parte trial was sufficient to connect the person named in the Information to the person convicted.

Legal Framework

Section 21(2) of the Provincial Offences Act provides that where a summons or offence notice has been served under Part I, no proceeding may be commenced by way of Part III Information except with the consent of the Attorney General or the Attorney General's agent. The consent requirement is not a technicality — it functions as a gatekeeping mechanism analogous to the preferred indictment process in criminal proceedings, ensuring that a person who has already been brought into the regulatory system by one stream cannot be escalated to a more serious stream without oversight and authorization. The court considered the evidentiary standard required to prove that consent, drawing on older common law authorities establishing that the consenting officer must have directed their mind to the particulars of the case: the identity of the accused, the nature of the offence alleged, and the time and place with sufficient certainty to identify what is being authorized.

Court's Analysis

The only evidence before the court on the consent question was the officer's sworn statement that he attended the Provincial Prosecutors' office, spoke with a provincial prosecutor he identified by first name only as "Wendy," and that she gave him permission to proceed under Part III. He did not know her last name. He could not say what information he provided to her. There was no written record, no affidavit, and no notation on the Information. The prosecutor Mr. Ganet offered his belief that the consenting official was Wendy Ramroop and that she was a provincial prosecutor and agent of the Attorney General — but acknowledged this was his belief, not evidence under oath.

Judge Martin acknowledged that consent need not be in writing and may be proved at any time during the trial. He also acknowledged that the Nazaro No. 2 line of cases supported that flexibility. However, His Honour drew a critical distinction: where consent has been obtained but documented sloppily, the curative provision in s. 25 of the POA may assist. Where consent has not been meaningfully obtained at all — where the record shows nothing more than that someone in an office said yes — s. 25 cannot cure the defect because there is nothing to cure. The court also noted that allowing s. 25 to operate as a backstop for a missing s. 21(2) consent would effectively render the gatekeeping function meaningless: an officer could bypass the consent requirement entirely and rely on the curative provision to clean it up after the fact.

On identification, the officer testified that he had spoken with "Mr. Gurdeep Singh" at the scene and confirmed the driver by Ontario driver's licence. The Information charged Gurdeep Saini. No particulars — date of birth, licence number, address — were provided to bridge the gap between the name the officer used and the name on the charge. At an ex parte trial with no defendant present to confirm identity, the court found the identification evidence insufficient.

Decision

Appeal granted. The conviction was set aside and an acquittal entered. The fine, which had already been paid, was ordered refunded.

Key Takeaways

The Saini decision establishes that the s. 21(2) consent requirement demands more than a verbal yes from someone at the prosecutor's office. There must be evidence that the consenting official actually turned their mind to the particulars of the case — who is being charged, with what offence, and on what facts. A bare oral grant of permission, with no record of what was communicated and no way to verify that the consenting official had the requisite authority, is not consent in any legally meaningful sense. The decision also illustrates the ex parte trap: when a defendant stays away believing jurisdiction is absent, the trial proceeds without the one person who could provide the identification particulars the officer failed to document. The combination of a defective consent and thin identification evidence left the conviction with no foundation.

Read the decision

R v Sandoval [1998] OJ No 4436

[1998] OJ No 4436

No summary has been written for this decision yet.

Read the decision

R v Walker

[1955] O.J. No. 345

R. v. Walker

[1955] O.J. No. 345
Ontario Supreme Court - Court of Appeal — Pickup C.J.O., Hogg and Gibson JJ.A. | October 31, 1955

---

Background

Douglas Walker was charged under section 29(1) of The Highway Traffic Act with driving without due care and attention AND driving without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway — both charges laid on the same information. When Walker appeared before the magistrate in April 1955, the law was murky about whether this section created one offense or two. The Ontario Court of Appeal had previously ruled it was just one offense, so the magistrate proceeded with the trial without objection from Walker's lawyer.

By the time Walker appealed to County Court, the Supreme Court of Canada had decided Regina v. Archer, clarifying that section 29(1) actually created TWO separate offenses. Walker's lawyer objected to being tried on an information containing two charges, but the County Judge said that objection should have been raised at the magistrate level. He applied section 753 of the Criminal Code and proceeded anyway, convicting Walker again.

Issues

1. Can a defendant be tried on an information charging two separate offenses simultaneously?
2. Does it matter whether an objection to duplicity is raised at trial?

The Duplicity Problem

The Court of Appeal was crystal clear: you cannot try someone on an information containing two separate offenses, period. It doesn't matter if no objection was raised — the magistrate had no legal authority to proceed once it became clear (thanks to the Supreme Court's Archer decision) that two distinct offenses were charged.

Chief Justice Pickup cited an English case, Edwards v. Jones, which laid out exactly what should happen when magistrates discover an information charging two offenses: ask the prosecutor to elect which charge to proceed with, strike out the other one, and if the prosecutor refuses to choose, dismiss the entire information as defective. The court emphasized that both the original trial and the County Court appeal were nullities — legal proceedings without any valid foundation.

Key Takeaway

An information charging multiple separate offenses is fatally defective and renders any conviction invalid, regardless of whether the defendant objects.

If you're facing charges and notice multiple distinct offenses on the same information, this is a fundamental flaw that goes to the court's jurisdiction to hear the case at all.

Read the decision