Disputing a Violation Ticket After the 30-Day Deadline

The Dispute

A driver was ticketed for speeding and for driving without consideration for others on the road. The driver went online to dispute it, could not find the ticket in the system after several attempts over three weeks, and then lost the paper copy at home. Nothing arrived in the mail, the thirty days ran out, the ticket became a conviction, and a four-month driving prohibition followed.

The Parties’ Positions

The petitioner sought a declaration that the refusal was incorrect or unreasonable, together with an order in the nature of certiorari setting the decision aside and remitting the application to a different judicial justice. The petitioner contended that the reasons disclosed no chain of rational analysis under section 16(2.1) of the Offence Act, which requires a justice to be satisfied of five matters before allowing a lapsed dispute to proceed. On the arguable defence, the petitioner relied on the objective test confirmed in R. v. Malcolm and submitted that no vehicle had been forced to brake, swerve or take evasive action, so the allegation rested on a subjective assessment. The petitioner also invoked R. v. Kienapple, seeking a conditional stay of one of the two deemed convictions.

Neither the Attorney General nor the judicial justice participated, so the decision under review stood as the answer to the petition. The judicial justice had refused the application in a single line, recording that the disputant admitted losing the ticket for which the disputant was responsible, and that there was no arguable defence to the violation ticket. That refusal engaged the first of the five conditions, which asks whether, through no fault of the defendant, the defendant had no opportunity to dispute the allegation. The ticket itself carried directions permitting a dispute to be given in person at a named address, or in accordance with instructions on its reverse, which was not in evidence.

The Court’s Decision

The court applied the reasonableness standard and found the judicial justice’s reasoning clear on the first condition, since the petitioner had admitted losing the ticket and had not explained why the in-person route plainly written on its face was not used. On the arguable defence the court took a different view, accepting that the words used provided no chain of analysis and would likely not have met the standard of justification, transparency and intelligibility had that been the only issue.

The decision nonetheless stood, because the conditions in section 16(2.1) are conjunctive and the justice had not been satisfied of the first of them. The court declined to take up the Kienapple argument for want of a sufficient factual record, and dismissed the petition. Both deemed convictions stood, leaving in place the four-month driving prohibition that had issued after them and the licence already surrendered.

Key Lessons for Drivers Disputing a Violation Ticket

• Use the in-person dispute route printed on the ticket when the online portal fails. The face of the ticket permits a dispute to be given in person at a named address, and the reasons record no explanation for why that route was not taken.
• Photograph or copy a violation ticket on the day it is issued. The ticket was lost at home within days, and a justice may treat the loss of a document the disputant was responsible for as inconsistent with a missed opportunity arising through no fault of the defendant.
• Address every condition in section 16(2.1), not the strongest one. The conditions are conjunctive, so a submission built on the arguable defence can fail on the explanation for the delay, and here the court would likely have found the reasons on the defence insufficient standing alone.
• Raise every ground before the tribunal, not for the first time on judicial review. The court declined to consider the Kienapple argument for want of a sufficient factual record, and whether to entertain a new issue remains within the reviewing judge’s discretion.

The outcome of this petition turned on the evidence before the judicial justice and on the record as it stood on review. A similar application may resolve differently.

Conducted by Siwei Xu, Associate Lawyer at ATAC LAW, who acted for the petitioner in this matter. Their practice includes civil litigation, construction disputes and residential tenancy matters.