York (Regional Municipality) v. Field, 2016 ONCJ 369

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: York (Regional Municipality) v. Field , 2016 ONCJ 369 DATE: 2016·06·17 IN THE MATTER OF an Application to Extend Time to Appeal pursuant to the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, as amended; BETWEEN: THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK Respondent — AND — PAUL FIELD Appellant ENDORSEMENT Before Justice Joseph F. Kenkel 17 June, 2016 Ms. Pankou ....................................................................................... agent for the Respondent No one appearing for the Appellant ………………………………………………………………….. KENKEL J.: [ 1 ] Mr.

Field was charged with speeding with a potential fine of $301 plus court costs. On November 14, 2014 he pled guilty to a reduced offence of disobeying a sign (the speed sign) contrary to s.182(2) HTA. He was sentenced to a $60 fine and given 12 months to pay. [ 2 ] Over a year later, on November 26, 2015 he filed an application to extend time for filing a conviction appeal of his guilty plea, and an application to permit an appeal without the paying of the fine.

At the time he stated that he suffers from physical and mental health disabilities including inflammatory bowel syndrome to explain the delay in appealing his plea. The Notice of Appeal states the grounds for appeal as - a police officer said something to him after his plea which caused him to doubt his plea. [ 3 ] The motions were set to be heard April 29, 2016. No transcript was filed by that time but one was later received June 3, 2016. The prosecutor asked Mr. Field to explain his ground of appeal and why he waited a year to do anything about it.

He’s not provided any further information. [ 4 ] The matter returned today, June 17 th for the motion to be heard. Mr. Field did not attend but sent a letter to the court repeating in almost the same terms the description of his physical condition from November of last year. He advised the court the “inflammatory bowel” condition is ongoing and renders him unable to leave his apartment. He said he is unable to drive to Newmarket to attend court at this time.

He asked for a two month adjournment but also asked that the matter not be marked peremptory as he did not know when he would be able to attend. [ 5 ] I’ve adjourned the applications to July 29 th 102 at 0930h marked peremptory on the Appellant to proceed at that time. If he’s again not well he can make arrangements for an agent or another person to attend on his behalf. [ 6 ] On the face of the documents there’s no apparent merit to the applications or the appeal. While the ultimate disposition on both must still be decided, in my view the matter should not be adjourned past the next date.

JUNE 17, 2016 Justice Joseph F. Kenkel