I have an appeal for a client whose offence notice has a correct set fine but an incorrect total payable. The matter proceeded under s. 9.1 and a conviction was registered. I have done much research and it seems that the more recent case law (R v Gandhi [2011] O.J. No. 2642) states that as long as the set fine is correct, the total payable is basically irrelevant and an incorrect total payable does not constitute an error on the face of the ticket. I take issue with this.

In this circumstance, the set fine was $260.00, and with costs and victim fine surcharge, the total payable should have been $325.00. The amount indicated was $320.00. Fast forward to receipt of the Notice of Fine and Due Date, and lo and behold the total amount owing is $335.00. I realize that the costs assessed on a 9.1 hearing are $10.00, but how did the total go from $320.00 on the ticket to $335.00 after 9.1 conviction? I am sure it was because the amount of $325.00 was assessed at the 9.1 proceeding.

The other part that baffles me is how anyone could take the position that the total payable is irrelevant. If this client had paid the $320.00, the payment would have been $5.00 short and could have put the client in a position of having a license suspension. Obviously I will be raising this issue at the hearing of the Appeal.

In any case, if any of you have any links to case law that supports quashing of a certificate based upon a CORRECT set fine with an *incorrect* total payable, I would really appreciate it.

Any thoughts or suggestions are welcome and appreciated.

Thank you!

These are the best I could do. Not 100% what you're looking for but something is better than nothing:

R. v. Montone, 2007

City of Sudbury v. Leikermoser, 2008