R. v. Hicks, 2014 ONCJ 468

Citation: R. v. Hicks , 2014 ONCJ 468 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. RYAN HICKS REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.A. POCKELE on July 17, 2014, at LONDON, Ontario APPEARANCES : J. Charron Municipal Prosecutor THURSDAY, JULY 17, 2014 REASONS FOR DECISION POCKELE J . (Orally): This is an appeal brought by Ryan Hicks that is extremely interesting in nature. Mr. Hicks was charged and received an offence notice

alleging that he’d committed an offence on January 30 th , 2014. The offence was speeding, 120 kilometres in a 100 kilometre zone. The original certificate of defence with Mr. Hicks’ signature on the back is filed in the court proceeding . Mr. Hicks checked the box and indicated that he wanted to appear in court to enter a plea of not guilty and to challenge the evidence. The stamp on the front of that would indicate that this was received by the Provincial Court office on February 18 th , 2014.

He was advised by a letter from the Provincial Court office that his matter had been placed on the fail to respond docket and he was convicted by way of s. 9 of the Provincial Offences Act on February 18 th , 2014. Mr. Hicks is appealing this matter on the basis that having regard to the calculation of time outlined in the Provincial Offences Act that he actually had another three days before the matter could be closed. In his intriguing argument, the Appellant makes reference to the rules concerning the calculation of time outlined in the rules of the Ontario Court Provincial Division, Provincial Offences Act .

In subparagraph four, they speak of the calculation of a period of time prescribed by the Act in ss. 205.7 and 205.19. It includes a

schedule that speaks of excluding the first day of service, including the last, if there’s six days or less, Saturday to Sunday is not counted, but what’s irrelevant here is that holidays are not included and over the time period we’re talking about, the Family Day holiday, a provincial holiday would have come in play. So the argument by the Appellant is that these rules of time calculation which are spoken of with respect to “notices to be given or delivered” would span the time period before the opportunity for exercising an option on the ticket would expire.

I’ve read the back of the ticket and when they speak of exercising an option it’s different language than that which is spoken of when notices are to be given or delivered within a court proceeding. I take the position that if you have a ticket and you want to exercise your option within 15 days, then you must exercise your option within 15 days by making delivery whatever it takes, of the document which exercises your option. It must be emphatically and actively exercised within 15 days. It is not to be extended by those provisions relating to notices to be given or delivered.

The word “exercising an option” is a different terminology and the time period is strict. It has to be strict having regard to the necessity of effectively administering a court which is already subject of gross delay. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. ... PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED ********** FORM 2 Certificate of Transcript Evidence Act , Subsection 5(2) I, DIANA RORKE, certify that this document is a true

and accurate transcription of the recording of R. v. Ryan HICKS held in the Ontario Court of Justice, 80 Dundas Street, London, Ontario taken from recording no. 2311_CrtRm4_20140717_083638_POA_6_POCKELG.dcr which has been certified in Form 1. _______________________________ _________________________________ Date Authorized Court Transcriptionist Legend : [ sic ] - Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error. (ph) - Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically. Transcript Ordered: August 18, 2014 Transcript Completed: September 2, 2014 Transcript Delivered: .................... September 2, 2014