. 2555569 Ontario Inc. v. Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks)
In 2555569 Ontario Inc. v. Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks) (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a POA-defendant's appeal, this brought against the earlier dismissal of "an application for certiorari pursuant to s. 140 of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, seeking to have the Superior Court judge quash the decision of the trial judge dismissing the s. 11(b) [SS: Charter 'trial delay'] application, alleging that he failed to exercise his jurisdiction and/or acted in excess of his jurisdiction when determining that application".
The court considers the defendant's duty to pursue disclosure, here in this POA context:
[21] .... While the Crown is obligated to disclose relevant material, the defence is equally obligated to be diligent in pursuing failed disclosure. A lack of diligence in the defence’s pursuit of disclosure, especially regarding information the defence knows exists, will impact the apportionment of responsibility for delay. It was within the trial judge’s jurisdiction to attribute some of the delay to the defence because he found that they did not efficiently advance their disclosure request. That is all the application judge was saying.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
