City of London v. Caza, 2010 ONSC 1548 (CanLII)
[1] The applicant, the Corporation of the City of London (“the City”) brings this application seeking an Order of mandamus with certiorari in aid with respect to the quashing of three Certificates of Offence by his Worship Justice of the Peace Bruinewood on January 5th, 2010.
[2] The reason provided by the Justice of the Peace for quashing the certificates was on the basis that they were not signed.
[4] During the month of September 2009, the London Police Service implemented a new technology which allows for the issuance of electronically based Provincial Offence Notices, to replace the traditional, carbon-paper based, multiple copy, paper ticket.
[5] To issue an electronic ticket, a police officer must log into a computer system by entering a user name and password. Thereafter, the officer is required to populate various data fields, including but not limited to date, name, address, charging statute, short form wording, charging section, set fine and signature. When the ticket is complete, it is printed on a mobile printer and a copy is provided to the offender (respondents).
[11] Sitting in chambers on January 5th, 2010, His Worship Justice of the Peace J. Bruinewood examined the tickets to determine if they were complete and regular on their face, pursuant to s. 9.1(2) of the POA and proceeded to quash the tickets on the basis that: “no signature of provincial offence officer”.
[8] At the time of their issuance, the tickets were produced electronically, on a Form 1 document, by PC Rowsell, using an electronic device installed in a London Police Service cruiser. The electronic device affixed an e-signature in the signature box, located on the lower, left side portion of the ticket, on behalf of PC Rowsell.
[24] Clearly, the electronic Certificates of Offence are intelligible and cannot be altered after the document has been signed electronically because the offender receives a copy from the officer which cannot be altered thereafter. As well, the document properly contained a code, name and even the number of a person as the originator of the document for identification purposes.
26] Accordingly, I find that the electronic signature of the police officer affixed to the Certificate of Offence is presumed to be correctly affixed in accordance with the officer’s official duties pursuant to the POA, and its regulation.
[28] An order in the nature of mandamus is hereby granted directing His Worship J. Bruinewood to enter convictions for the three offence notices pursuant to his jurisdiction under s. 9(1) of the POA.
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
JUSTICE J. N. MORISSETTE
Durham (Regional Municipality) v. Zhu, 2011 ONCJ 193 (CanLII)
24) Modern times require modern ways. There was initially a challenge to the issuance of electronically-generated tickets and more specifically to the ‘electronic signature’ of the investigating officer. Both matters have been disposed of by way of case law, and today electronically-generated ‘tickets’ are common-place. So too are electronic notes here to stay. It would seem the writing is on the wall so to speak, of the days of being unable to read an officer’s handwritten notes in disclosure packages all across the province.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
Justice of the Peace R. J. Le Blanc
