Cops can fix small errors on tickets after issuing them

Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:21 am

Posting Awards

Cops can fix small errors on tickets after issuing them

by: daggx on
Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:33 pm

The Ontario Court of Appeal came out with a new ruling today that will effect those of us who might wish to use the London v. Young defence. It seems that the court has said that if a cop notices an error on a ticket before filing it he or she can change it on their copy before filing to with the court. In order to get the ticket quashed you will now have to convince a Judge that the error significantly prejudiced your defence. I haven't had a chance to read through the whole ruling yet, but I will post it here along with the CBC article on the subject so that others can take a look and comment.

News Article: ... -1.3943984

Full Copy of the Ruling: ... CA0045.pdf
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:26 pm

by: Whenaxis on
Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:52 pm

Interesting read - thanks for sharing!

I think it's particularly noteworthy that the Court refers to section 90 of the Provincial Offences Act for its decision:
"Irregularities in form
90. (1) The validity of any proceeding is not affected by,
(a) any irregularity or defect in the substance or form of the summons, warrant, offence notice, parking infraction notice, undertaking to appear or recognizance; or
(b) any variance between the charge set out in the summons, warrant, parking infraction notice, offence notice, undertaking to appear or recognizance and the charge set out in the information or certificate.

Adjournment to meet irregularities
(2) Where it appears to the court that the defendant has been misled by any irregularity, defect or variance mentioned in subsection (1), the court may adjourn the hearing and may make such order as the court considers appropriate, including an order under section 60 for the payment of costs. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 90."

Section 90(1)(a) seems to address any errors (or irregularities or defects) on a ticket. The Court, in its decision, said that errors such as incorrect name, incorrect municipality, etc. is not enough for a justice to invalidate a proceeding.

Section 90(1)(b) seems to address any errors corrected by a police officer (variance between the offence notice and the certificate). The Court, in its decision, said that the Act does not explicitly say that the police officer can or cannot fix errors, but section 90(1)(b) would lend itself towards justifying any errors corrected.

And finally, section 90(2) provides for a remedy if the error causes the defendant to be misled or prejudiced. The Court gave the example of a police officer completely changing the charge on his copy of the ticket after already giving the ticket to the defendant, since this would affect the ability of the defendant to provide full answer and make a defence.
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:33 am

Posting Awards

by: Observer135 on
Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:06 am

I see York region is at it AGAIN, I find it interesting that York region the leader when it comes to fighting such cases tooth to nail.

Anyway, just a small note to jsherk, London v. Young would still be a valid argument if you need to use it, in that case the tickets were not corrected. So if a ticket is filled with the court and it is incomplete, you can still use that case law.
In this scenario the officers were "modifying" with the certificate of offence, that is really what it boils down to and the question of, are they allowed to?

As you can see, according to our top court that is OK if it does not result in misleading the accused.

Besides, the ticket can always be amended anyway, so why even bother. What I am surprised about is, why were these tickets just amended? Would that not be logical thing to do?

I guess everyone fell asleep behind the wheel.
Post Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “Courts and Procedure”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest