R. v. Wilson, 2011 ONCJ 440

Citation: R. v. Wilson , 2011 ONCJ 440 Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Court ( Toronto West Region) Regina v. Paul Wilson Before His Worship P. Kowarsky Justice of the Peace Charge: Being the owner of land on which refuse has been thrown, placed, dumped or deposited, fail to clean and clear the refuse from the said land contrary to the City of Toronto Municipal Code,

Chapter 548, as amended,

section 548-5 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT For the Prosecution: Mr. D’Onofrio The Defendant: Self represented Trial: August 16, 2011 Judgment: August 16, 2011 R. v. Paul Wilson

A. The Charge 1 . The defendant is charged that on or about July 24 th 2008, being the owner of the land located at 110 Richardson Avenue, Toronto, on which refuse had been thrown, placed, dumped or deposited, he failed to clean and clear the refuse from that land. 2 . This offence is contrary to

section 548-5 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code,

Chapter 548, as amended which provides as follows: The owner of land on which refuse has been thrown, placed, dumped or deposited shall immediately clean and clear the refuse from the land. B. History of this Case 3 . Since the offence date is July 24 th 2008, more than three years ago, it is necessary and prudent to review the history of this case. 4 . On October 27 th 2008, a Justice of the Peace swore a

Part III Information, and issued a summons calling upon the defendant to appear on January 15 th 2009 in Courtroom W2 at the Provincial Offences Court located at 2700 Eglinton Avenue West in Toronto. 5 . An Affidavit of Service was sworn and filed by a P. Martin indicating that he served the summons by delivering it personally to the defendant on 3 rd November 2008. 6 . On January 15 th 2009 the defendant failed to appear, and the matter was adjourned at the request of the prosecutor to December 1 st 2009 in Courtroom W2 at 3:00 pm for an ex-parte trial. 7 . On December 1 st 2009 the defendant did not appear.

An ex-parte trial was held. The Court entered a plea of not guilty on behalf of the defendant at 3:15 pm. The defendant was found guilty, and a fine of $1000.00 was imposed. C. Appeal Proceedings 8 . On December 23 rd 2009, the defendant filed a Notice of Appeal, in which he provided his “address for service” as 110 Richardson Avenue, Toronto M6M 3S1. The relief requested was “charge dismissed or new trial”. Concomitant with such filing, the defendant swore an Affidavit in Support of Recognizance. The Notice of Time and Place of Hearing was served on the appellant personally on July 15 th 2010. 9 .

On November 24 th 2010, the Ontario Court of Justice, sitting as a Court of Appeal, granted the appeal, and ordered a new trial. The matter was adjourned to February 8 th 2011 at 9:00 am in Courtroom W7 to set a date for the new trial. 10 . On February 8 th 2011, Mr. Wilson appeared, and the matter was adjourned to April 19 th 2011 in Courtroom W8 at 9:00 am for the new trial. 11 . On March 17 th 2011 the defendant’s motion to change the trial date was denied for reasons not indicated. 12 . On April 7 th 2011 the defendant filed a Notice of Motion for an order that the trial date be changed.

In the Notice of Motion, the defendant provided his address 110 Richardson Avenue Toronto. On April 11 th 2011, the defendant’s motion was granted, and the matter was adjourned to May 31 st 2011 at 10:30 am in Courtroom W8 for trial; the defendant indicated that, as he had done before, he wished to represent himself at the trial. 13 . On May 31 st 2011, at the defendant’s request, the matter was again adjourned to July 21 st 2011. The defendant indicated that he required this adjournment because he was “awaiting transcripts” and wished to file a

section 11(

b) motion. 14 . On July 21 st 2011 disclosure was provided to the defendant. At his request the matter was adjourned to today, August 16 th 2011 at 10:30 am for trial. D. The Defendant’s Behaviour 15 . As soon as the prosecutor called the matter the defendant appeared, and immediately began a diatribe of complaints and accusations of unlawful and criminal behaviour on the part of members of the judicial system. Throughout the proceedings, the defendant was rude and disrespectful. His utterings were convoluted and haphazard.

He demonstrated a propensity to deviate from responding to the Court’s questions and remarks, and he continued to endeavour to divert the Court’s focus from the charge and the issues before the Court. E. The

Section 11(

b) Charter Motion 16 . The defendant had filed a “Notice of Application for Stay of Proceedings” with the Prosecution’s Office in this Courthouse and with the Court earlier today. He acknowledged that the Notice had not been served on the Attorney General for Ontario or the Attorney General for Canada as required by the Courts of Justice Act. 17 . The defendant stated that this matter had gone on for three years, and violated his Charter right to a speedy trial. I denied the application, telling the defendant that:-

a) service was not proper:

b) a new trial had been ordered on appeal, and the matter therefore commenced de novo on February 8 th 2011; and

c) the application consequently had no merit. F. Disclosure 18 . The defendant also told the Court that he had not received all the disclosure which he required. When I asked him what disclosure he still required, his response was related to information in regard to the identity and “will say” of the person who had originally filed the Affidavit of Service of the Summons in 2008. 19 . I told the defendant that he had attorned to the jurisdiction of the Court, and that disclosure of that information was not required in order for him to make full answer and defence. G. The Trial 20 .

The defendant was arraigned, but refused to enter a plea. The Court therefore entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf. The prosecutor called Bryan McGuire, who is the investigating officer employed by the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division of the City of Toronto. Officer McGuire testified that:-

a) In April of 2008, he observed a house located at 110 Richardson Avenue, Toronto;

b) Because there was a large quantity of waste and garbage at the side of the house, he knocked on the entrance door, but there was no response;

c) On May 1 st 2008 he returned to that house, received no response to his knock on the entrance door, and observed that none of the garbage and other waste material had been removed since he was last there in April 2008.

d) On May 1 st 2008 he issued a Notice of Violation requesting the owner of the property to clear the garbage and waste within six days. The Notice was sent to the defendant at 110 Richardson Avenue, Toronto by registered mail. 21 . A copy of the Notice of Violation together with the Canada Post registration receipt and tracking update were shown to the defendant, filed with the clerk of the Court, and entered into evidence, marked collectively as Exhibit 1. The tracking update indicates that the item was successfully delivered on May 2 nd 2008. 22 .

Officer McGuire further testified that he attended at the property again on July 24 th 2008, and found that the garbage and waste had not been cleared. He took digital photographs of the side of the house on that day. Four photographs reflecting the garbage and waste at the side of the property were shown to the defendant, who refused to look at them. These photographs were then tendered and accepted into evidence, and marked collectively as Exhibit 2. 23 .

The prosecutor showed the defendant a certified copy of the Toronto Assessment Role with respect to the property concerned, indicating the assessment for 2008 and that the owners of the property were listed as Paul D. Wilson and Julie Nagy of the same address. This document was tendered and accepted into evidence as Exhibit 3. 24 . I invited the defendant to ask questions of the officer. He asked only whether the officer knew Paul Martin, to which the officer responded “No”. The defendant advised that he had no further questions to ask the officer. 25 .

The prosecution then closed its case, and I asked the defendant whether he wanted to testify. He declined, and said that he would deal with the matter at the appeal level. H. Submissions 26 . The prosecutor submitted that he had proven all the elements of the offence, and invited the Court to enter a conviction. 27 . The defendant submitted that from April 28 th 2004, the property was under a Power of Sale by Scotia Bank.

He told the Court that Julie Nagy had only owned one percent of the property, and that when the mortgage became due for renewal, she refused to sign a new Mortgage Agreement, and also refused to be removed as part owner of the property. The defendant further informed the Court that:-

a) on January 19 th 2010, Julie Nagy finally “came off the title”;

b) the house burnt down on March 1 st 2010 while he was inside, and he was hospitalised as a result of his injuries; and that

c) the City of Toronto charged him with $367.00 for making a false fire alarm. 28 . At the conclusion of the trial at approximately 11:30 am, I informed the prosecutor and the defendant that I would deliver my decision at 3:00 pm on today, which I did. I. Disposition 29 . From the evidence of officer McGuire which remains uncontradicted, coupled with the three exhibits filed with the Court, I am satisfied that the defendant was an owner of the property on the offence date and that he failed to comply with the Notice of Violation which required him to clean and clear the refuse from his property.

30 . Accordingly, I am convinced that the Prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and there will be a finding of guilty. Paul H. Kowarsky Justice of the Peace Province of Ontario Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Court ( Toronto West Region) Regina v. Paul Wilson Before His Worship P. Kowarsky Justice of the Peace Charge: Being the owner of land on which refuse has been thrown, placed, dumped or deposited, fail to clean and clear the refuse from the said land contrary to the City of Toronto Municipal Code,

Chapter 548, as amended,

section 548-5 ADDENDUM TO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

For the Prosecution: Mr. D’Onofrio The Defendant: Self represented Trial: August 16, 2011 Judgment: August 16, 2011 SENTENCE: After hearing submissions from the prosecutor and the defendant, I imposed a fine of $1000.00, which is significantly lower than the minimum fine for such an offence. I gave the defendant 6 months within which to pay the fine. P. H. Kowarsky Justice of the Peace Province of Ontario