COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: R. v. Jaques, 2015 ONCA 380
DATE: 20150527
DOCKET: M45031
Lauwers J.A. (In Chambers)
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent (Responding Party)
and
Keith Jaques
Applicant Moving Party
Keith Jaques, acting in person
Kathryn Manning, amicus for the moving party
Jocelyn Speyer, for the responding party
Heard: May 21, 2015
ENDORSEMENT
[1] On October 1, 2007, Justice of the Peace W. Ross convicted Mr. Jaques for two counts for driving without insurance under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C-25, and one count of driving with a suspended licence. He appealed the convictions, and on December 15, 2008, Harris J. of the Ontario Court of Justice, affirmed the convictions but reduced the fine on the first count to $3,125, on the second count to $6,250, and on the third count to $875.
[2] Mr. Jaques is aware that driving without insurance is a serious offence and places others in jeopardy of insufficient insurance for serious injuries. He understands that this is why the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act imposes mandatory minimums for conviction of $5,000 and $10,000 for first and second offences, respectively. Ensuring adequate insurance coverage is undoubtedly an important public policy goal.
[3] Mr. Jaques seeks an extension of time to serve and file a notice of motion to seek leave to appeal the decision of the appeal judge. He explains the multi-year delay on the basis that he did not know until recently that he could appeal the decision.
[4] Mr. Jaques explains his situation eloquently, both in his affidavit and in his oral presentation. In his affidavit, he notes that he is an alcoholic and was suffering from related mental disabilities at the time of the appeal. He states:
I had just joined Alcohol Anonymous, was withdrawing from many years of alcohol abuse and was living at Alpha House (a clean living house) at the time of the first appeal. I was in a confused state and I was not able to comprehend, or fully participate, in the appeal process because of my mental state.
[5] Mr. Jaques states that he knew he could not afford the fines, but wanted to take responsibility for the offences. He hoped that, on appeal, his fines would be further reduced than they were. Regrettably, given the passage of time, no transcripts are available.
[6] Mr. Jaques swears that:
Although I have remained sober since that time, I find now, many years after my conviction and sentence, that these fines, over $10,000 in total, are affecting my financial circumstances very negatively. I have had to ask for numerous extensions to pay and I have made payments as I could. These amounts outstanding, I am very negatively affected because I have attempted to apply for a record suspension for unrelated charges from many years ago, but I was told I could not receive one until these fines have been paid.
[7] Mr. Jaques asserts that this situation has negatively affected his ability to apply for various jobs, although he is now gainfully employed.
[8] I have great sympathy for Mr. Jaques’ plight, and accept without reservation his assertion that the debt burden of these fines is staggering for him. I also accept that he has changed his life in a positive way, for which he is to be greatly commended and supported.
[9] Regrettably, I advised Mr. Jaques that, in these circumstances, under the rules of court, the provisions of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, and the legislation under which he was convicted, there is nothing I can do for him. He was successful on the first appeal in having his fines reduced, indicating that the appeal judge turned his mind to Mr. Jaques’ plight.
[10] Mr. Jaques did not form an intention to appeal within the time required. He argues that an extension of time is warranted because “the due administration of justice” and broader public interest issues related to accommodation for disabilities are implicated by his appeal.
[11] Mr. Jaques is not the first person in such a situation to come to this court in order, as he put it, to “beg for mercy”. He plainly deserves it, but I cannot grant it. The legislative scheme offers no way out for people who are impoverished, dealing with health issues or other difficulties, and who bear the burdens of these enormous fines for many years. It is most unfortunate that there is no process in the system for commuting old and backbreaking fines for people who have little prospect of paying them, and whose lives are being ruined. Perhaps it is time to consider a quasi-bankruptcy scheme for people in Mr. Jaques’ unfortunate position.
[12] The motion is dismissed.
“P. Lauwers J.A.”