R. v. Cotton Felts Ltd., 2022 ONCJ 213

CITATION: Hamilton (City) v. Milligan, 2022 ONCJ 213 DATE: May 5, 2022 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE Central West Region City of Hamilton -and- Edward MILLIGAN Proceedings 05 May 2022 In chambers Statutes Considered or Cited: Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, as amended Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, as amended Cased Considered or Cited: R. v. Cotton Felts Ltd. (1982), (ON CA), 2 C.C.C. (3d) 287 (Ont. C.A.) Application for Extension of Time to Pay 1. This is in relation to multiple Applications for time to pay, under s. 66.0.1(3)of the Provincial Offences Act.2.

The Case numbers are as follows: Case Number Date of Offence Prior Extensions4760-999-06-211-2116302F-00 04 Sept 2005 22 Jun 2016 10 April 20184760-999-09-3327-00 18 Nov 2009 22 Jun 2016 10 April 20184760-999-00-4239093B-00 05 March 2014 22 June 206 10 April 20184760-999-00-7834236B-00 06 Nov 2017 4760-999-00-7834233B-00 06 Nov 2017 4760-999-00-7834235B-00 06 Nov 2017 4760-999-00-8408771B-00 17 Feb 2018 10 April 2018 4760-999-00-7834237B-00 06 Nov 2017 4760-999-00-7834234B-00 17 Nov 2017 4760-999-00-8408770B-00 17 Feb 2018 10 April 2018 4760-999-00-8408772B-00 17 Feb 2018 10 April 2018

4760-999-00-8408771B- 00 17 Feb 2018 10 April 2018 4760-999-00-8408774B- 00 17 Feb 2018 10 April 2018 4760-999-00-8408773B- 00 17 Feb 2018 10 April 2018 4760-999-00-8408769B- 00 17 Feb 2018 10 April 2018 4760-999-00-8412638B- 00 09 Apr 2018 4760-999-00-8412639B- 00 09 Apr 2018 4760-999-00-8412642B- 00 09 Apr 2018 4760-999-00-8412640B- 00 09 Ap 2018 4760-999-00-8412641B- 00 09 Apr 2018 4760-999-00-2116305F-00 12 Mar 2021 4760-999-00-2116304F-00 12 Mar 2021 4760-999-00-2116302F-00 12 Mar 2021 4760-999-00-2116303F-00 12 Mar 2021 Case Number Date of Offence Prior Extensions 3 .

The convictions listed above include drive suspended, G1 infractions, plate, validation, insurance card, speeding and licence infractions, 4 . Prior Applications for Extension of Time to Pay have included information that the defendant spent significant time in custody and had been unable to pay. It appears on the face of the applications that the defendant paid an amount of $150 as an indication he accepted responsibility, and a suggestion he would make further payments. 5 . The purpose of sentencing is multi-faceted but primarily aimed at specific and general deterrence ( R. v.

Cotton Felts Ltd.) , that is, to signal that these behaviours are not permitted. Additionally, sentencing is meant to protect the public from the prohibited behaviour, as well, where appropriate, to facilitate rehabilitation. 6 . Further, it is to be noted that driving is a privilege (s. 31 of the HTA) and not to be abused. 7 . The current application is based on a claim that the defendant is unemployed due to COVID, is back to work and is required to have a licence to move forward.

There is no claim that the defendant/applicant is actually entitled to a licence, or that a licence is required for critical purposes, such as work or health. 8 . The application was rejected by the Clerk of the Court, pursuant to s.66.01(2) of the POA, and rejected on the grounds that there have been no good faith efforts to pay (presumably pursuant to prior approvals of Orders for Extension of Time to Pay). 9 . I agree with the decision of the Clerk and decline to Order any extensions at this time. 10 . To start, there is no plan proposed to address these outstanding obligations.

There is an explanation of why the defendant has been unable to pay any of the fines, there is nothing offered to suggest a willingness or plan to pay them. 11 . The convictions have largely been on the deem not to dispute dockets. 12 . The patterns suggests that prior efforts to obtain Orders for Extension of Time to Pay simply permitted the defendant to gain or re- establish driving privileges, however, the subsequent failures to comply with licence conditions, such as having a qualified accompanying driver demonstrate a complete disregard for his responsibilities and limitations as a driver.

Simply, he treats driving as an unfettered right and not a privilege. 13 . For these reasons, I am not prepared to authorize any Orders for Extension of Time of Pay. 14 . Of course, should the defendant/applicant present a realistic, compelling plan for consideration by the Court, and demonstrate in some fashion a new-found appreciation for the holding of a driver’s licence as a privilege, a further application may be viewed more favourably. Donald Dudar Justice of the Peace