The Justice of the Peace, quite sensibly, said go to your home jurisdiction. For unknown reasons the complainant declined and sought mandamus and, on losing that, appealed the matter to the Court of Appeal.
(Why? There must be some story there!!! Who has time or money for that especially when the charge could have been laid without issue at the local courthouse)
The Court of Appeal ruled that Justices of the Peace have province wide jurisdiction -- an important point arises from an otherwise unedifying case:
[38] In my view, "territorial jurisdiction" in s. 504 of the Criminal Code refers to the entire province of Ontario.
[39] Pursuant to s. 17(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act, justices have jurisdiction throughout Ontario. The fact that the Courts of Justice Act divides Ontario into regions for administrative purposes does not alter the jurisdiction conferred on justices by s. 504 of the Criminal Code. As Aitken J. stated in Hackett at para. 15, "[t]he regions created under the Courts of Justice Act are created for administrative purposes related to the administration of justice in the province; they are not created for jurisdictional purposes."
[40] Contrary to the Crown's submission, interpreting "territorial jurisdiction" in s. 504 as the entire province of Ontario does not offend the principles of statutory interpretation. The Criminal Code is federal legislation, governing all of the provinces and territories. Adopting one interpretation for one province does not dictate such a result elsewhere in the country. In other parts of Canada , where legislative schemes governing the systems of court may be different, "territorial jurisdiction" may well have a different meaning. In my view, the phrase "territorial jurisdiction" in s. 504, like the definition of "territorial division" in s. 2 of the Criminal Code, provides the flexibility necessary to accommodate provincial and territorial differences: see Hackett at para. 10. Accordingly, interpreting "territorial jurisdiction" in s. 504 to mean the province of Ontario does not necessarily render that phrase redundant simply because the word "province" is used elsewhere in that section.
[41] Moreover, the reference in s. 504 to "territorial jurisdiction" in Ontario may be explained on an historical basis. Historically, in Ontario, justices were appointed to a particular county or docket. At that time, their jurisdiction may have been limited to the territory to which they had been appointed. However, the enactment of the Courts of Justice Act, 1984, S.O. 1984, c. 11 "brought about significant changes in court structure" and "altered the approach to territorial divisions within the province": see Ponnuthurai at p. 443. Separate provincial courts of each county and district were amalgamated into province-wide courts. After a detailed review of the legislative history of the Act and the subsequent amendments, Pringle J. stated at p. 445 of Ponnuthurai:
When the language of the Courts of Justice Act was amended to indicate that the division of the province into regions was for administrative as opposed to jurisdictional purposes, it is logical to infer that regions no longer had jurisdictional significance, but rather only administrative [significance]. The effect of the legislation was thus to create different administrative regions within a single jurisdictional unit. [Emphasis added.]
[42] The notion of a single jurisdictional unit is further reflected in s. 17(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act which, as has been mentioned, states that justices of the peace have jurisdiction throughout the province.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
No comments:
Post a Comment