“Once I Got My Appeal Date --what Happens At Court?”

My court date is nearing at old city hall at appeals court.

iwhats going to happen and what do i do?

do I present my certificate of offence and point out to the judge the fine was incorrect, I did not appear and am now appealing on the grounds the Justice of the peace erred and failed to quash the ticket on the basis of the certificate not being properly examined and is not complete and regular on its face, and then submit the London V Young decision as my grounds for appeal.

do i also submit that i had requested disclosure on two occasions and the prosecution failed to provide me with these court documents and lastly bring up that when i paid the fine in order to appeal it was also incorrect and the court clerk didnt even know which amount was too be paid?

whats the procedure in court-are they going to have me make a opening argument per say?

Unfortunately that case law is not valid any more, the fine does not have to be correct on a traffic ticket. You have no grounds for the appeal, the Justice will not quash the ticket for this offense.

If you have any questions about an appeal, a licensed paralegal should be able review this for you at no charge and give you the right answers.

No longer valid? London v. Young was a decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal, so either they or the Supreme Court would have to overturn it, no? As recently as June 18 of this year it was still valid (R. v. Monahan). When was it reversed? If you have a link to the case law that overturned London v. Young, that would be great.

Also, I have heard that Appeal judges can be particular. I would hire representation.

Reflections wrote:Also, I have heard that Appeal judges can be particular. I would hire representation.

Particular ..I can see that.

However--my case is cut and dry-

the officer issued me a certificate of offence for 32km/h over the posted limit.

he then fined me $120 set fine and $150 total payable. I dont show up in front of the JP on my court date and a conviction is entered.

THEN when I got my conviction notice in the mail it says $160..

when I went to Edward St to pay my fine so i could do my appeal, the court clerk did an ICON Inquiry/Offence Inquiry and on the document (which I have a copy) states its $145.

The court clerk didnt even know which Amount I should have paid (I paid the $160 which was on the conviction notice mailed to me).

heres my argument: a) I have both a wrong set fine amount AND Total payable amount. then the court clerks office says $145, and my notice and Fine Due Date/Conviction Notice says $160.

I have been lead to be confused-the court clerk was confused--

and if that is not Prejudicial! because the outcome could have prejudiced me by me paying the wrong fine amount with a deficiency, leading to a unpaid fine and then a licence suspension.

That is my argument. and it started by the issuing officer making a mistake in the first place. Then the JP erred by NOT examining the Offence Notice. Now the court clerks office has made a mistake by entering a completely different amount.

the ACTUAL fine for 32 over is not $120.

I just hope the Judge sees it from my point of view.

So are you hiring someone or not?

Reflections wrote:So are you hiring someone or not?

NOPE. i have managed with the help of a few people here managed to get this far.

im just wondering how the procedure was going to play out on hearing day in a few weeks

Apologies in advance for the lengthy reply here. It may be a little difficult to fight, but until I get some actual case law that says London v. Young is no longer applicable, I'm going to stick with the idea that the law should be on your side. Present everything - the error on the ticket, the lack of disclosure, just like you said in your original post. Your appeal is under section 135 of the Provincial Offences Act. The procedure for it is loosely outlined in section 136, which basically says it is like a "review."

(FYI - Justice is wearing a red sash, he's addressed as "Your Honour" as opposed to "Your Worship." Green sash = JP, "Your Worship.") When you begin, state in some way that you are unable to afford a lawyer so you appreciate their understanding, as you have no formal legal training yourself. Your evidence is straightforward: You received a ticket, did not appear for trial, the ticket was not complete and regular on its face, the Justice of the Peace entered a conviction contrary to the procedure required by section 9.1 of the Provincial Offences Act and against precedent established by London v. Young, City of Barrie v. Porter, City of Sudbury v. Leikermoser, R. v. Monahan and R. v. Montone, and that the ticket should be quashed and a finding of not guilty entered against you. You may be asked why you did not appear for trial.

Have a binder of evidence and your arguments. Study those specific cases and see what you can do with them. R. v. Montone is very similar to your case, except it was for running a red light. Basically you can use transcripts, or any records you can get, to show that the fines were incorrect. The JP cannot amend the certificate without you present. Justice K. Feldman of the Ontario Court of Appeal wrote in the London v. Young case that "the set fine forms part of the basis used by the defendant to decide whether to default."

The other thing to add to your arguments that you already posted is that if the fine is incorrect, you could possibly run into trouble for not completely paying the fine, or you could be ripped off for over-paying. They're supposed to correct it, but given the numerous mistakes already made, that seems unlikely. When someone defaults and does not appear for trial, the state has the obligation to ensure that the paperwork is done correctly. If not, someone could get their licence suspended or get ripped off because of a paperwork error, which is why the fine should be correct and proper and the JP must examine it - as you said. You have now had three different fines given by three different people. How is a layperson supposed to know which one to pay? This is not acceptable, it is a Gong Show, and the only fair remedy is to quash the certificate.

They'll probably argue that you did file for a trial, which is different than not responding, but R. v. Leikermoser says that failure to appear triggers the same provisions as failure to respond.

Anyway... that's what I would do. Keep in mind, though, that I do not have formal legal training. While I have observed quite a few trials, defended myself a couple of times and helped a few friends with theirs, that's the extent of it. I do not pretend that I'm some sort of expert. IF we can confirm that London v. Young is no longer applicable, that changes things... but you still could argue that the whole thing should be quashed because of the administrative errors made by the JP and clerk.

Good luck with it.

It seems like a waste to hire representation for a Part I appeal after a s.9 or s.9.1 conviction. There should be no transcript, just the certificate of offence, the conviction order/notice signed by the JP, and the original offence notice that you would bring to the appeal. Am I right in all that?

s. 118(1) of the POA expressly allows you to represent yourself, even for a Part III appeal, so it should be no problem for a Part I appeal.

I would think that the judge would be ticked at the JP for wasting their time with such appeals, and tell them to strictly adhere to London v. Young.

The end result was in this thread here:

Off Camber won. The presiding Justice at the appeal quashed the certificate. The Prosecutor even conceeded as soon as Off Camber presented an argument from City of Barrie v. Porter.

Keroba wrote:It seems like a waste to hire representation for a Part I appeal after a s.9 or s.9.1 conviction.

Depends on how confident/competent one is. Off Camber did it on his own, but he also did his homework properly and researched everything thoroughly, and I'm sure had a pretty good idea of how to present himself in court. Not everyone is as well-versed.

Keroba wrote:I would think that the judge would be ticked at the JP for wasting their time with such appeals, and tell them to strictly adhere to London v. Young.

You'd think so. However, the position of JP was created to expedite legal proceedings. Some are very good at what they do and have the same expertise as a real Justice, most of them are fair and reasonable, and some are "interesting" for lack of a better expression.

I've heard of JPs telling defendants that the ticket itself is the only disclosure they shall get; rejecting joint submissions and sending the defendant to the Crowbar Hilton, and imposing a fine that was double the statutory maximum, when the Crown and defence had asked for a licence suspension and $1000 fine; convicting a defendant because he was wearing a Rastafarian hat (that JP was subsequently dismissed from the bench); and, of course, we have these foul-ups by not quashing a ticket with a fatal error. However, in their defence, most of them only attended a meagre 2 weeks of JP school, which is nothing compared to the extensive stuff you have to do at law school - which a real Justice must have attended. The majority of JPs do a good job. It's the ones who don't have a clue that we hear about the most, unfortunately.

Keroba wrote:

It seems like a waste to hire representation for a Part I appeal after a s.9 or s.9.1 conviction.

Depends on how confident/competent one is. Off Camber did it on his own, but he also did his homework properly and researched everything thoroughly, and I'm sure had a pretty good idea of how to present himself in court. Not everyone is as well-versed.

I'm one of those poorly versed individuals. I nearly crapped myself the first trial I went in for.

However now I'm going in for two more trials soon and I'm thousands times more confident. Just walk in with the right knowledge and you're golden.

This is a little belated but congrats on the win Off_Camber, and hopefully you get your suspension thing figured out.