OHTA.ca

I was recently pulled over for running a red and I wasnt able to find my wallet in the car at the time to hand over my license. I had a passport in the vehicle that he used. The wallet was in the vehicle, it just fell through the seats. (Tough to find a black leather wallet in a black/black leather truck at night).

The officer still wrote the tickets for both he signed the one ticket (failure to surrender DL) but not the other (red light). My question is.. Does the officer have to sign both tickets with badge number and all. Or is one ticket good enough?.. Is this worth a fight?

If the tickets are hand written, as opposed to computer generated, then yes the officer has to sign both tickets. An unsigned ticket is a considered a fatal error, and thus the best thing for you to do is ignore the unsigned ticket. Here is a link that talks about what to do if your ticket has a fatal error, the article talks about what to do when the set fine on your ticket is wrong but the same principle applies to an unsigned ticket as well. http://ticketcombat.com/offences/fines.php#forceerror

You can also use the search function on this site to search for the terms "force fatal error" and "London vs Young" that should bring up a number of threads from people who have used this strategy to defeat tickets with fatal errors on them.

The officer has to sign the actual ticket that goes to court. The part that goes to the driver does not require a signature.

There are two parts to the ticket... the Certificate of Offence which the officer files with the court and the Notice of Offence which the officer gives to you.

The Certificiate of Offence definitely needs to be signed. If it is not signed, then it is a fatal error. But the only way to determine whether it is signed or not, is to go to the Clerk's officer and request a copy of it.

Now I know @argyll above says the Notice of Offence that you received does not need to be signed. However I think (but am not 100% sure) that it also must be signed...

I believe Provincial Offences Act section 3(2)(b) which says that it must be signed:

"3(2) A provincial offences officer who believes that one or more persons have committed an offence may issue, by completing and signing in the form prescribed under section 13, (b) either an offence notice indicating the set fine for the offence or a summons. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 4, s. 1 (2)."

Provincial Offences Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER P.33

(b) either an offence notice indicating the set fine for the offence or a summons. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 4, s. 1 (2).

This following case law, at paragraph 18 supports that section 3(a) says the Certificate of Offence MUST be signed, which means it should also apply to the Notice of Offence in 3(b):

R. v. McPherson, 2012 ONCJ 807 (CanLII) http://canlii.ca/t/fvrkp

I read the case law differently. It says:

"Sections 3(2)(a)&(b) of the POA are of further guidance. These sections set out that an officer may issue a Certificate of Offence but must complete and sign it to certify an offence has been committed and she/he has issued either an Offence Notice including the Set Fine or a Summons. The use of the word ‘or in s. 3(2)(b) satisfies this Court that the issuing officer must be precise on the Certificate of Offence as to whether an Offence Notice or a Summons was issued. Hence the police procedure referenced above, by this Court in Djurcik. "

The Certificate of Offence (the bit that goes to the court) must be signed TO CERTIFY THAT...she/he has issued....an Offence Notice (the bit that goes to the driver). Therefore the ticket should not actually be signed until after it has been served on the driver.

In fact technically no ticket given to a driver should be signed as the officer is signing after the fact to say that the ticket has been issued.

Again, just my opinion, but...

3(2) says "by completing and signing" ... what is it that must be completed and signed?

In (a) it says the Certificate of Offence is what must be completed and signed.

And in (b) is says either Notice of Offence (with set fine) or the Summons is what must be completed and signed.

If "completing and signing" applies to (a) then it must apply to (b) in the same way.

Yes they are contradictory. Of course the only person who's opinion matters is the justice. Yet another case of laws being badly written ! Of course that allows lawyers to make lots of money arguing over ambiguous legislation.

no previous court case for reference?

Posted R. v. McPherson case law a few replies up above.