Kim v. York (Regional Municipality), 2022 ONCJ 96
Opinion
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: Kim v. York (Regional Municipality) , 2022 ONCJ 96 DATE: 2022·03·11 NEWMARKET BETWEEN: JI-HOON KIM Appellant — AND — THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK Respondent PROVINCIAL OFFENCE APPEAL Heard: March 11, 2022 Delivered: March 11, 2022 Ms. Carolyn Galin ......................................................................... counsel for the Respondent Mr. Ji Hoon Kim ............................................................................................ on his own behalf KENKEL J.: Introduction [ 1 ] Mr. Kim was charged with speeding.
His Notice to Appeal says he chose to pay the ticket the same day as it was “the right thing to do”. He later found out that the speeding conviction and demerit points would affect his insurance rate. He now characterizes the plea as a mistake. He does not dispute that he was speeding, but he questions whether he was travelling at the speed alleged. Change of Mind – Insurance Consequences [ 2 ] The speeding ticket provided the standard three procedural options including attending court to set a trial date. Mr. Kim chose to plead guilty and pay the fine.
His present concern arises from the impact of two prior convictions and this offence on his insurance. That’s not a reason to strike his guilty plea. [ 3 ] As a licensed and insured driver, Mr. Kim is aware of the provincial demerit point system and he is also aware of the terms of his private insurance contract. He’s in a unique position to obtain information about any potential impact of a speeding conviction on his insurance rate prior to entering a guilty plea.
Any potential increase in his insurance rate as a result of the speeding conviction is not a “legally relevant” collateral consequence of a guilty plea. Collateral consequences that go to the voluntariness of an informed plea must be state-imposed flowing from the conviction or sentence – R v Wong, 2018 SCC 25 at para 9 . [ 4 ] Mr. Kim was aware of the offence, the set fine and his procedural options. He knew that demerit points could result, and he
should have been aware of the terms of his insurance contract. His failure to obtain information about demerit points or ask his insurance company about the potential impact of any speeding conviction is not a basis on which to strike the guilty plea. [ 5 ] A guilty plea and payment of a fine is a final act which should not easily be set aside, particularly in the very busy provincial offence courts. Drivers know that provincial offence convictions may have administrative and insurance consequences and it has to be up to them to make any inquiries in that regard.
If they choose not to do so that does not render their plea equivocal, uninformed or involuntary. This is not a case where there is any potential for a miscarriage of justice. Conclusion [ 6 ] The appeal is dismissed. Delivered: 11 March, 2022. Justice Joseph F. Kenkel
Loading document…