Hi guys,

Wondering if the officer not signing the "Summons to Defendant" Form 104 defendants copy would constitute a fatal error. To be clear, the certificate is signed with a carbon transfer signature, however not one that is in ink. I have noticed that a fair amount of officers take the time to sign each individual carbon copy, however in this case they did not.

Thanks!

It is still a signature regardless.

- carbon signature - completely identical to top/original therefore defendant received a complete "true copy" of face of offence notice and/or summons, unlike a ink signature which would not be completely identical thru all copies

- ink signature - can say that particular piece of paper was personally signed by the officer, which cant do with carbon

IMO it is just a "po-ta-toe" to "po-tat-toe" thing....means same thing there is a signature on the document served to the defendant

Hey Guys,

Interesting enough, this being my first post and all I have a similar situation. I received 2 "Summons To Defendant" and both have the following errors, please post opinions Im wondering if these are fatal errors:

-Misspelled Name (on both)

-Incorrect postal code (each summons has a different postal)

-Both Summonses have no signatures

Im guessing the signatures or lack-there-of constitute Fatal Errors?

Unless an error prejudices your ability to make full answer and defence to the charge, it is not likely to be considered fatal.

Simon Borys wrote:

Unless an error prejudices your ability to make full answer and defence to the charge, it is not likely to be considered fatal.

So I guess all these "Fatal Error" rules are irrelevent then? just wondering because if your statement is true, those rules mean nothing.

I don't know what "fatal error rules" you're referring to, but, as I said, anything that prejudices your ability to make full answer and defence is usually considered a fatal error, which makes sense if you think about it. In my experience, fatal errors would be things like no date, wrong or missing act or section number, no defendant listed, no signature of officer, etc.

Without these there is insufficient information on the ticket to create a defence to the charge, which prejudices your ability, which is why they're fatal.

Simon Borys wrote:

In my experience, fatal errors would be things like no date, wrong or missing act or section number, no defendant listed, no signature of officer, etc..

Well thats what I'm trying to figure out. If "no signature" is a fatal error does that constitute the ticket being quashed? Here's what Ticket Combat has to say on it:

Ticket Combat wrote:

Fatal Errors

A fatal error is an error on your ticket that is sufficient to get your case thrown out. It is quite common for people to receive a ticket with errors on it. Unfortunately not all errors are fatal. If the right person is standing in court and the police officer can identify you, then the error could not have been fatal. In fact, under Section 34 of the Provincial Offences Act the justice can amend the ticket to fix the error so that it is correct.

Non-Fatal Errors

The following errors are not fatal and won't get your ticket thrown out:

misspelled name, incorrect address, wrong driver's licence number;

incorrect location;

incorrect date or time;

wrong licence plate;

wrong vehicle color or description;

incorrect set fine or total payable amount.

FATAL Errors

The following errors are fatal and will get your ticket thrown out:

no offence date;

no defendants name (if your name is misspelled, the ticket still counts);

no location;

missing officers signature;

unknown offence (e.g. speeding 70kh/hr in a 64km/hr zone);

the filing date is beyond seven days.

Apparently according to ticket combat, the "fatal errors" are enough to get the ticket quashed.

Simon Borys wrote:

I don't know what "fatal error rules" you're referring to, but, as I said, anything that prejudices your ability to make full answer and defence is usually considered a fatal error, which makes sense if you think about it. In my experience, fatal errors would be things like no date, wrong or missing act or section number, no defendant listed, no signature of officer, etc.

Without these there is insufficient information on the ticket to create a defence to the charge, which prejudices your ability, which is why they're fatal.

Simon

Just curious... I've seen other discussions on this board that have said that an incorrectly calculated fine on a speeding ticket is considered a fatal error. Is this the case and if so, how does this "prejudice your ability to make full answer and defence"? Is it that it creates confusion over what speed you are actually being charged with?

LAWguy wrote:

Simon Borys wrote:

In my experience, fatal errors would be things like no date, wrong or missing act or section number, no defendant listed, no signature of officer, etc..

Well thats what I'm trying to fiqure out. If "no signature" is a fatal error does that constitue the ticket being quashed? Here's what Ticket Combat has to say on it:

The fatal errors you've listed above are for regular tickets. To the best of my knowledge they are NOT the same for summons. A summons isn't a charging document, it just compels you to attend Court. An information will be generated for the Courts which is the actual charging document for the offences listed on the summons.

Stanton wrote:

The fatal errors you've listed above are for regular tickets. To the best of my knowledge they are NOT the same for summons. A summons isn't a charging document, it just compels you to attend Court. An information will be generated for the Courts which is the actual charging document for the offences listed on the summons.

Stanton- This is what I'm trying to fiqure out. What do you mean by "An information will be generated for the courts"??

On your first Court date an information (a document listing the charges) will be read out, and entered on record. The officer who charged you is responsible for generating the document and forwarding it to the Courts. It's basically just a formal document that list the name of the accused, the charge wordings and section.

I agree with Stanton with respect to the Summons. It is the information itself that you'd be looking for errors on in that case. In the case of Part I offence notices, that document IS the information, so that's why you are concerned with errors on it.

I think it might clear things up to state that a fatal error will always result in the ticket being quashed (that's why it's called fatal). The problem is, there is not 100% consensus on what constitutes a fatal error, though generally I agree with the list you provided from Ticket Combat.

With respect to incorrect or missing set fines, those are fatal, according to the Ontario Court of Appeal, incorrect set fines are fatal errors and will result in the ticket being quashed. They don't refer to missing set fines, but those are fatal as well.

I'd agree with Stanton and Simon Borys.

"Fatal error" does not apply to a Summons. This is because there is no "out of court" resolution when you are summoned to appear in court. Part I offences (regular tickets) DO have a mechanism for "out of court" resolutions. In fact, the Provincial Offences Act specifically says that, if the defendant fails to respond or does not appear for trial, the presiding Justice of the Peace must examine the ticket to see if it is "complete and regular." If it is not, the JP has to quash it... BUT this ONLY applies to Part I. Summons are under Part III, and the provision for quashing if there is an error does not exist. So, you really did not have a choice but to go to court.

Radar Identified wrote:

I'd agree with Stanton and Simon Borys.

"Fatal error" does not apply to a Summons. This is because there is no "out of court" resolution when you are summoned to appear in court. Part I offences (regular tickets) DO have a mechanism for "out of court" resolutions. In fact, the Provincial Offences Act specifically says that, if the defendant fails to respond or does not appear for trial, the presiding Justice of the Peace must examine the ticket to see if it is "complete and regular." If it is not, the JP has to quash it... BUT this ONLY applies to Part I. Summons are under Part III, and the provision for quashing if there is an error does not exist. So, you really did not have a choice but to go to court.

Hey Radar Identified,

Thank for that explanation. I wasn't really disagreeing with anyone, I'm was trying to get to the bottom of how these diffrences play out. I agree with both Stanton and Simon as well, I just didnt know if this applied to Summons and it makes total sense now.

Would you happen to know the section in the POA that states the facts you mentioned. I always looking to read and aquire more knowledge. I would like to see how the POA defines "Complete and Regular" as well.

Thanks to everyone who replied

s. 9.1