Police are allowed to make minor changes to tickets after issuance - C of A ruling | GTAMotorcycle.com

Police are allowed to make minor changes to tickets after issuance - C of A ruling

GreyGhost

Well-known member
Site Supporter
TL:DR minor changes that do not prejudice a defendant are allowed (eg. spelling, date, municipality) and the presence of these changes is not a viable defence.

http://www.northumberlandnews.com/news-story/7075248-cops-ok-to-fix-ticket-mistakes-after-the-fact/

Cops OK to fix ticket mistakes after the fact
TORONTO — An officer who fixes minor mistakes after issuing a ticket does not affect its validity, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled Thursday.

The ruling, which clarifies inconsistent lower court rulings, restores driving convictions against two motorists.

"An important goal of the Provincial Offences Act is that cases be decided on their merits," the Appeal Court found. "A corollary to that goal is that a minor defect in a proceeding, not prejudicing a defendant, should not be given effect to."

In the first case, an officer ticketed Amatal Wadood for making an unsafe turn. The ticket, however, did not name the municipality where the offence occurred, so the officer filled in "City of Vaughan" before filing it with the court.

In the second case, police charged Douglas Davis with driving at 149 kilometres an hour in a 100 zone. The officer later realized the wrong year was filled in and corrected the mistake.

Both motorists requested a trial but neither showed up on their respective hearing dates and a justice of the peace convicted them on the basis they had not disputed the charges. They appealed, arguing the law does not allow officers to change a ticket after it's been issued.

In February 2015, Ontario court Judge James Chaffe quashed the convictions even though he found both motorists knew exactly what charges they faced. Nevertheless, Chaffe ruled, the officers had changed the certificates of offence "without authority."

The municipality, York Region, turned to the province's top court, which agreed to hear the case to settle numerous conflicting rulings on an issue of widespread importance.

The drivers argued it would be unfair to have the tickets they were given say one thing while the courts have something different. They also argued the act requires a certificate of offence to be "complete and regular on its face" before a judge or justice can convict an accused in absentia.

In setting aside Chaffe's decision, the Appeal Court found that the Provincial Offences Act does not authorize an officer to make after-the-fact changes — but neither does it ban the practice. That doesn't mean officers have the unfettered right to make changes, the court said, but correcting minor mistakes — a misspelling of a name for example — is perfectly understandable given the thousands of tickets issued every year.

Judges made aware of such changes — they do not normally see the ticket the driver was issued — would have to decide if the accused was misled or prejudiced, and could only convict if the answer was no.

"Whether an amendment will invalidate a conviction depends on the nature of the amendment and its impact on a defendant," the Appeal Court said.

"In the appeals before us, each amendment did no more than correct a minor clerical error on the certificate; neither Wadood nor Davis was misled or prejudiced by the amendment; and thus the validity of the proceeding against each of them was preserved."

Allowing minor changes to fix errors aligns with the context and purpose of the law, the court said, which is to allow courts to decide cases on their merits rather than see large numbers of them thrown out on technical grounds where the accused is not harmed.

Tossing cases because of small mistakes that cause no prejudice would not promote the fair administration of justice, the Appeal Court said.

"Defendants are protected if they were misled or prejudiced by a change to information on the certificate of offence."

By Colin Perkel, The Canadian Press
 
What a terrible decision from the C of A. Not naming the municipality where the offence occurred, is a minor mistake? And so is putting in the wrong date (i.e. wrong year)? Okay, so, then, what would be an example of a mistake that is not minor?

The Court also said these "minor" mistakes did not prejudice or mislead the accused. Are you, serious? By that rationale, all mistakes on a ticket are minor: wrong name, wrong vehicle colour, etc., and will not prejudice/mislead the accused.

I propose that by the same token, the accused is also entitled to correct "minor mistakes", on his version of the ticket. Then there can be a pissing match between whose corrected ticket is the "correct" one. Yes, I'm being sarcastic.
 
The law gives the right to a fair trial.
Not a perfect one.
I did in fact beat a speeding ticket because the officer wrote down the wrong section of the HTA on the ticket.
My argument was that after looking up the section in the HTA which did not deal with speeding, I was unable to mount an adequate defence to the charge.
However the portion of the ticket filed with the court had not been corrected.
 
Big difference between the wrong charge and putting the wrong year, say in the beginning of Jan. where many do it. I'd give them a mistake on the date, but not on the wrong charge. If they charge you on something you didn't do, you win. A slight mistake in the spelling isn't much.
 
So does this mean that if I write a contract and have it signed by two parties that I can make "minor" changes after the contract is signed? What's good for the goose is good for the gander isn't it? I mean, how much harm could changing the date on a contract do? Or a few numbers here and there.

Talk about opening Pandora's box. Stupid ruling. Just really stupid.
 
Contracts are a whole different thing. Both side review it before signing.
 
Last edited:
This has nothing to do with anything but the money.
The way governments look at this is that all these little errors translate into "lost revenue".
Easing up on or allowing error correcting is their way of ensuring they win more in traffic court and rake in more dough.
IIRC the news story I heard mentioned that this decision will be retroactive... How they'll administer that I have no idea, but to me it sounded like if you had a ticket with an error that was used as an excuse to throw it out... You can expect the charge to be re visited. I think they said they would be going back seven years.
So, yeah... It's about the money. Not public safety.... MONEY.

I wonder what the hell would happen if for one month NO ONE committed a traffic offence. I mean no one sped, failed to signal, didn't drive alone in the HOV... The province would have to figure out how to deal with all that "lost revenue"...Lol
Only the gov't can say they lost money they never actually had in the first place.
 
Last edited:
It's always about the $$$.

Gov't lose/waste lots of $$$ they don't have.

How can they make it retroactive? Those were settled under the "rules" at that time.
 
I suppose the crown could appeal the cases they lost...?
I dunno... That's what I thought I heard on the car radio, but I was texting, speeding and a little bit drunk at the time.
It wouldn't surprise me though... The gov't/courts can do whatever the hell they want when it suits them.




It's always about the $$$.

Gov't lose/waste lots of $$$ they don't have.

How can they make it retroactive? Those were settled under the "rules" at that time.
 
Last edited:
As long as intent is not messed with I have no problem with that. If I was speeding and get caught that is the intent of the ticket. Fact that someone made a clerical error wouldn't bother me at all.

Than again I don't fight my tickets. I've never been issued one I didn't deserve so I pay up and don't bother fighting. Couple of minor tickets over the decades of driving has had zero impacts on my points and my insurance. Just hits the pocketbook
 
I don't believe the C of A stated that the officer can lay the "wrong charge" then correct it later, (IE write a ticket which charges the driver with improper left turn, but then changes, it to speeding), what they were referring to was a "minor error" IE the accused is charged with Driving Unsafe Vehicle Section HTA section 84, and the ticket has written "drive unsafe vehicle" on it along with contrary to HTA 48, (administrative suspension for over .05).

Obviously, the court can construe the officer's intent was to lay a charge under section 84, but simply reversed the numbers to read 48. The mere fact that the wording of the charge was correct, shows the proper charge and the resulting officer's intent.
 
To me the interesting thing here, is that both motorists decided to waste everyone's time but their own, and then appealed when they were convicted.

As far as the actual situation, it doesn't define what is a minor vs major change, so that still has to be worked out on a case by case basis.
 
As far as the actual situation, it doesn't define what is a minor vs major change, so that still has to be worked out on a case by case basis.

That should be left to the JP as is almost impossible to set in stone. It would be up to the defendant to convince the JP that the mistake caused prejudice on them. Along the lines as someone stated above, if the entire wrong charge was written, you are unable to prepare an appropriate defense, if the charge is correct but the section is wrong, you should be able to figure that out for yourself (as above if you were charged for unsafe vehicle and the section number was related to DUI, it's obvious that a mistake was made). Again, this is all up for debate, what if you were charged with improper left turn and the section number written was for driving not on roadway? Which way are they going to amend it in court? It could go either way, so that may be a fatal error.
 
Big difference between the wrong charge and putting the wrong year, say in the beginning of Jan. where many do it. I'd give them a mistake on the date, but not on the wrong charge. If they charge you on something you didn't do, you win. A slight mistake in the spelling isn't much.

Agreed - a mistake on the date is not likely to be significant, given that the ticket is handed to you at the time of the offence, not after the fact.
Same as a minor mistake in the licence information or spelling of your name or address - again, you were handed the ticket - identification is not an issue. Where you live is not likely relevant.
 
I was under the impression minor errors such as date, location, license or name already fail to meet the standard for a fatal flaw, so why amend them at all?
 
I was under the impression minor errors such as date, location, license or name already fail to meet the standard for a fatal flaw, so why amend them at all?

The region of York took these cases to the C of A, so they could have a precedent set. Most JP's wouldn't consider these minor errors as "fatal flaws", but some "may". Now they no longer have that option as a precedent has been set. I see it primarily as "housekeeping" type of exercise
 
As long as intent is not messed with I have no problem with that. If I was speeding and get caught that is the intent of the ticket. Fact that someone made a clerical error wouldn't bother me at all.

Than again I don't fight my tickets. I've never been issued one I didn't deserve so I pay up and don't bother fighting. Couple of minor tickets over the decades of driving has had zero impacts on my points and my insurance. Just hits the pocketbook

^This. I know popular opinion around here is fight everything and try to get out of everything, but in reality a ticket is given because you did something you shouldn't have done. The court system is in place to fight a ticket that was wrongly given (eg. if they got you for speeding if you were 100% not, if they thought you rolled through a red but really you stopped, if you couldn't see a sign as it was blocked, etc). The fact they wrote 2016 vs 2017 or slightly misspelt something doesn't change the intent or reason behind a ticket.

In the first case, an officer ticketed Amatal Wadood for making an unsafe turn. The ticket, however, did not name the municipality where the offence occurred, so the officer filled in "City of Vaughan" before filing it with the court.


In the second case, police charged Douglas Davis with driving at 149 kilometres an hour in a 100 zone. The officer later realized the wrong year was filled in and corrected the mistake.


Both motorists requested a trial but neither showed up on their respective hearing dates and a justice of the peace convicted them on the basis they had not disputed the charges. They appealed, arguing the law does not allow officers to change a ticket after it's been issued.

Have to love the fact they knew what they did, didn't even show up to their own court dates, but still wanted it thrown out due to minor technicalities.
 
Last edited:
The region of York took these cases to the C of A, so they could have a precedent set. Most JP's wouldn't consider these minor errors as "fatal flaws", but some "may". Now they no longer have that option as a precedent has been set. I see it primarily as "housekeeping" type of exercise

I was gonna say, won't most JPs say "tough ****" on all of those errors? This seems like a logical housekeeping move, to maybe help extract traffic court from the bogged down tarpit it is now
 
So does this mean that if I write a contract and have it signed by two parties that I can make "minor" changes after the contract is signed? What's good for the goose is good for the gander isn't it? I mean, how much harm could changing the date on a contract do? Or a few numbers here and there.

Talk about opening Pandora's box. Stupid ruling. Just really stupid.

Changing a contract comes under Civil Law, and no you can't change it without the consent of all parties.
The Highway Traffic Act trials come under the Provincial Offences Act which is regulatory law.
 
To me the interesting thing here, is that both motorists decided to waste everyone's time but their own, and then appealed when they were convicted.

As far as the actual situation, it doesn't define what is a minor vs major change, so that still has to be worked out on a case by case basis.

Actually they appealed twice.
Provincial Offences Act appeals are heard by a Provincial Court judge.
If it went to the Court of Appeals, the Prov. Court judge's ruling had to be appealed as well.
 

Back
Top Bottom