R. v. Swallow

Parties

Procedural Posture

Summary Offence (motor Vehicle Act S.64) / Automatic Conviction Entered; Potential Application to Strike Out Under S.8(18) of the Summary Proceedings Act

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether an automatic conviction under s.8(15) of the Summary Proceedings Act was properly entered when no one identified themselves as the accused at the call of the ticket
2. 2 Whether the court retains jurisdiction under s.8(18) to entertain an application to strike out an automatic conviction
3. 3 What procedural safeguards or identification requirements the court can impose on applications to strike out automatic convictions to prevent frivolous or vexatious litigation

Ratio Decidendi

Because no one properly identified themselves as the person named on the ticket when the matter was re-called, the court properly entered an automatic conviction under s.8(15); the court also retained jurisdiction under s.8(18) to entertain an application to strike out that automatic conviction and may impose reasonable procedural prerequisites, including verified identification, to prevent frivolous or vexatious applications.

Court Disposition

Automatic conviction entered; judge set procedural conditions for any application to strike out under s.8(18)

Orders

• Any application to strike out the automatic conviction in SOT #15031713 must be submitted in writing and in accordance with the Summary Proceedings Act and governing regulations, including payment of any required fee
• The applicant must be the person named in the ticket and must sign and date the application