Information No.

0661 999 22 3375-00

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

v.
10

TOMISLAV ROKI

15
P R O C E E D I N G S

BEFORE HIS WORSHIP JUSTICE OF THE PEACE N. BURGESS

20
on FEBRUARY 1, 2023, at CALEDON EAST, Ontario

25

APPEARANCES:
L. Marcon Counsel for the Crown

30
P. Bassi Counsel for the Defendant
 (i)
Table of Contents

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

5 WITNESSES: Exam. in-Ch. Cr-Ex. Re-Ex.

...NO WITNESSES WERE CALLED AT THIS TIME

Ruling 20
10

LEGEND
[sic] Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and
is not a transcription error
(ph) Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically
15 [indiscernible] Transcriptionist unable to discern word(s)
despite best efforts
.../.... Indicates incomplete thought and/or interruption

20

Transcript Ordered: February 08, 2023

Transcript Completed: February 23, 2023
25
Ordering Party Notified: February 23, 2023

30
 1.
R. v. Tomislav Roki

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2023

THE COURT: Anything else you can deal with at
this moment then?
MR. BASSI: Yes, I'm here for the Roki matter,
5 name is Bassi, B-A-S-S-I, initial P.
MS. MARCON: I understand it’s line 29, Your
Worship.
THE COURT: Okay. Line 29. Okay. Thank you.
Okay. And so, what's happening with this matter?
10 MS. MARCON: Yes, Your Worship, I understand
that on the last date, there were a couple
issues that were raised, and it was put over
for today’s date for the Crown, being myself,
to appear to make submissions.
15 So, the first thing that was raised was
that the Justice of the Peace pointed out that
the informant had not signed the information,
and the second was the defence raised a
disclosure issue. So, if I may please respond
20 in regards to both of those issues?
THE COURT: All right. I assume there's a
motion being made by somebody, is that correct?
MS. MARCON: No, there isn’t, and that’s going
to be my first submission that I'm going to be
25 making.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I haven't heard a
motion, anything being made at this point, so I
certainly will act on a motion.
MS. MARCON: Yes.
30
THE COURT: But can I just inquire as to
whether the justice who dealt with it on the
last occasion, is that justice seized in this
 2.
R. v. Tomislav Roki

matter?
MS. MARCON: No, I don't believe she heard
anything in particular in regards to that, and
actually just put it over to allow the Crown –
5 Ms. Hollick was appearing as my agent on that
date and was not obviously prepared to make
submissions on that point, so I don't believe
she’s seized. There's no trial, it hadn’t
commenced or anything like that.
10 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Mr. Bassi, were
you making a motion, sir?
MR. BASSI: We are certainly going to bring in
a motion. We attended on first appearance,
disclosure was not ready. On the last occasion
15 was the second appearance. At that time,
disclosure was sent to us and the Justice of
the Peace pointed out that the information was
not signed.
THE COURT: Right.
20 MR. BASSI: This is our third appearance. We
have received the disclosure. Upon review of
the disclosure, we learned that the date of the
offence is May the 17th, 2022. Nine months has
passed by. You have an information before you
25 which is nullified. It’s – it hasn’t been
signed and with that, there's no jurisdiction
to proceed.
THE COURT: Okay. You're asking the Court to
make that finding, is that correct?
30
MR. BASSI: Yes.
THE COURT: You're not making the finding. I
have to make that finding, correct?
 3.
R. v. Tomislav Roki

MR. BASSI: Well, I'm asking you to make the

finding, Your Worship.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, you’ve told me it’s
nullified and you’ve told me it’s no
5 jurisdiction. I'm trying to point out to you,
sir, is I make that decision, okay?
MR. BASSI: Yes, thank you, Your Worship.
THE COURT: All right. So, the issue right now
is with regard – sorry – with regard to the
10 information not being signed by the informant,
is that correct?
MS. MARCON: That’s correct, Your Worship.
THE COURT: Okay. And you want to make
submissions with respect to that?
15 MS. MARCON: If I may, Your Worship, and I'm
hoping that the cases that I provided yesterday
made their way to...
THE COURT: They are.
MS. MARCON: ...Your Worship?
20 THE COURT: I see them here now. Yes.
MS. MARCON: Perfect. Thank you. So, Your
Worship, first of all, I’d like to start off by
saying that the courts have been quite clear
right up to the Court of Appeal that Provincial
25 Offence Act – Provincial Offences Act matters
are to be dealt with on their merits, and that
any defects on their face should be corrected
or amended, but they should not derail what the
proper form of dealing with it is and that's
30
having the trial on its merits, especially on a
matter of such seriousness as it is in this
circumstance.
 4.
R. v. Tomislav Roki

And that you will see in those cases that I

provided, specifically with respect to
Massicotte and Singh, which both were appeal
matters out of the Superior Court of Ontario.
5 So, that's paramount, first of all. Secondly –
and those cases also stand for the fact that a
signature for the informant is not required.
So, unlike section 3(2) in Part I, which
specifically states, by completing and signing
10 in the form when there is to be an issuance for
a certificate of offence, as well as section
15(2) for Part II offences, it specifically
states that, shall complete and sign. Under
Part III, section 24 makes absolutely no
15 mention of the requirement of a signature. And
those cases specifically with respect to Singh
and Massicotte both agree to that.
And the D-R – sorry, E.P.R. case that I’ve
provided to Your Worship, which is Justice
20 Durno’s decision, although on a different type
of case, specifically says that on the face, if
the information was signed and the jurat is
signed by the Justice of the Peace, it is proof
that it has probably been sworn before the
25 Court.
You will look at the information here and
indeed you’ll see Justice Budaci’s signature
and, in my respectful submission, that is the
only signature that is required. At the top
30
you’ll even see that Constable Michel’s name
and badge number appears. But, again, those
cases specifically state that the signature is
 5.
R. v. Tomislav Roki

not required. And....

THE COURT: I'm sorry, can you direct me to
where it says a signature is not required?
MS. MARCON: Yes, that’s what I was going to
5 do.
THE COURT: What case...
MS. MARCON: Yes, Court's indulgence.
THE COURT: ...case are we talking about?
MS. MARCON: So, the first one I will turn Your
10 Worship to is R. v. Singh.
THE COURT: Hold on, let me see. Just a sec.
Massicotte – okay. So, I have R. v. Singh.
MS. MARCON: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
15 MS. MARCON: And just to let you know, Your
Worship, this was actually appealed and – on a
different issue, and the Court of Appeal upheld
the decision, so that’s even the Court of
Appeal upholding it. At paragraphs 47...
20 THE COURT: Forty-seven. Okay.
MS. MARCON: ...and 48. And I will
specifically – and that’s at page seven, Your
Worship.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me get to that. Now,
25 you have a copy of this, do you, sir?
MR. BASSI: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Okay. Good. Okay. Thank you. Go
ahead.
MS. MARCON: And this is Justice Ricchetti of
30
the Superior Court of Ontario – Ontario
Superior Court of Justice:
 6.
R. v. Tomislav Roki

“I accept the Crown's submission that Part

III of the POA specifically does not
require the signature of the affiant on the
information unlike proceedings in Part I
5 where section 10 requires a signature to be
on the certificate. No such requirement is
found in section 24 of the Provincial
Offences Act.
I note that in Massicotte, which was
10 Justice Speyer’s decision, stated that the
identity of the person laying the
information had no bearing on the ability
of the accused to make full answer and
defence....”
15

Because that’s what it boils down to at the

end of the day. Any defect should be amended
where possible, and only if it’s going to
impact defence’s ability to make full answer
20 and defence is it where it’s prejudicial to
them. And in this case, the signature of an
informant is not prejudicial to the full answer
and defence or – to be made.

25 “An information quashed because of an

illegible signature...”, that was the facts
on this case, “...was set aside and
remanded back to trial.”

30
So, even though that was illegible, in my
respectful submission, it’s no different
whether the signature is there or not, that
 7.
R. v. Tomislav Roki

case is quite clear.

Massicotte is at paragraph – Court's
indulgence. Sorry, Your Worship, I had it
tabbed but I lost my tab. Paragraph 16, I
5 think it is. Yes, it’s at paragraph 16, page
four.
THE COURT: And this is Massicotte?
MS. MARCON: It is.
THE COURT: All right.
10 MS. MARCON: And that....
THE COURT: Just a second.
MS. MARCON: Yes.
THE COURT: What page did you say?
MS. MARCON: It’s page four, paragraph 16.
15 THE COURT: Okay. Let me see, one more and
I’ll be there. Okay. Go.
MS. MARCON: So, it starts off by citing
section 23, which – of the Provincial Offences
Act, which obviously states that an officer
20 swearing the information must provide
reasonable and probable grounds. And then
below that it states:

“The identity of a person laying the

25 information has no bearing on the ability
of a person charged to make full answer and
defence to the charge. Indeed,
informations are frequently sworn by police
officers who have no involvement in the
30
investigation of the charge, and whose
reasonable and probable grounds are based
on information provided by the officers.”
 8.
R. v. Tomislav Roki

So, in my respectful submission, again, it

goes to the whole full answer and defence.
There's absolutely nothing that can be said
that he would be prejudiced in proceeding with
5 the information as it is before the Court
without the signature today.
And the paragraph that Justice Durno, in the
– in the case of E.P.R. Services Inc. is at
paragraph 25, and that would be page eight, and
10 that’s where it states that the signature of
the Justice of the Peace is proof to anyone
looking at that information and is the vital –
that the vital step has occurred, and that is
sufficient to carry on with the matter and to
15 hear it on its merits, as the courts have been
quite clear about.
And I can advise you that the sections with
respect to that are at page – again, it’s in
the Massicotte case, Your Worship, and it’s at
20 paragraphs 10 through 12, which specifically
outlines the importance of Provincial Offence
matters being heard on their merits and that
defects should not derail that.
Thank you. Other than any questions Your
25 Worship may have, those are my submissions with
respect to that.
THE COURT: Well, I guess I can ask some
questions now...
MS. MARCON: Sure.
30
THE COURT: ...and I'm certainly going to look
into the matter.
MS. MARCON: Yes.
 9.
R. v. Tomislav Roki

THE COURT: I'm just handed this now. Are you

suggesting that the informant doesn’t have to
sign the information?
MS. MARCON: I think that’s what the...
5 THE COURT: Okay. So....
MS. MARCON: ...case in Singh is quite clear,
Justice Ricchetti said specifically that.
THE COURT: Okay. So, when somebody says that
you come in and the informant – and although I
10 agree with you totally that in fact often
there's what they call a general informant and
it may be somebody who completes most of the
Provincial Offences matters, and I know that in
some jurisdictions it could take all day to
15 swear all the informations.
MS. MARCON: Yes.
THE COURT: But the informant in the matter,
although signs the information, must also
indicate to the Justice of the Peace what
20 evidence they have, okay?
MS. MARCON: Yes.
THE COURT: And so, it’s not just simply – I
know you want to say something.
MS. MARCON: I know, I stopped myself.
25 THE COURT: Okay. And I don't want to do it to
you, and notice I never interrupted you, so
don't start now please, okay?
MS. MARCON: No.
THE COURT: All right. I'm going to hear and
30
consider the allegations of the informant and
where a case is made out, I confirm the
process. So, it isn’t simply just the signing
 10.
R. v. Tomislav Roki

of the information, okay? So, that individual

must come in and swear or affirm that the
evidence contained within that information are
true.
5 MS. MARCON: Right.
THE COURT: Now, I can see that Justice of the
Peace Budaci signed the information, I can see
that officer – is it Michel or Michel?
MS. MARCON: I think it’s Michel. I apologize
10 if I'm....
THE COURT: Is it Michel? Is it pronounced
Michel? Okay. I see that person’s name there.
Now, the likelihood in this situation is that
he was before Justice of the Peace Budaci and
15 he swore to the information before that,
because it would appear – now, just let me look
at the date here.
And it’s one of those unusual ones, because
I see that the offence date is 2022. Now,
20 looking at the documents here, this is where I
have a little bit of a problem. It’s a
statement and not the officer being before
Justice of the Peace Budaci, okay?
So – and we’ve been running into some of
25 these issues where even the Justice of the
Peace has not signed an information. Okay.
So, I'm under section – what is it – 23, the
amendment to the Provincial Offences Act?
And I can go back to the times when you're
30
dealing with these matters, it was always – the
information was to sign, swear, and sign. So,
the officer signs the information, swears to
 11.
R. v. Tomislav Roki

the information, then the Justice of the Peace

signs it. And then there's the hearing and
considering the allegations of the informant.
So, it is a process that needs to be done.
5 MS. MARCON: Yes.
THE COURT: Now, I don't necessarily totally
agree with what you’ve just said, it’s
unnecessary for them to sign, because it
creates nothing but a disaster in the future.
10 Are we now going to look at an information
just signed by the Justice of the Peace, or are
we going to look for one that should be done
properly, because that’s the same standard set
out in the Criminal Code as it is under the
15 Provincial Offences Act; you hear and consider
the allegations of the informant where a case
is made out, then you sign the information, and
you can confirm the process.
Okay. So, I think it's a little more than
20 just, by the way, this is a Provincial Offences
Act and no matter what mistake we make, we
should be able to try these people. And of
course the answer to it all is, let's do it
right, let's do what the section says. Because
25 I haven't seen the section changed.
MS. MARCON: Yes.
THE COURT: It still says that you must swear
to it. Now, generally speaking, when swearing
to this, you would sign the information.
30
Now, the question here, and I'm not making
any finding one way or another, the question is
here, this was not done in front of Justice of
 12.
R. v. Tomislav Roki

the Peace Budaci, in other words, the officer

was not there. So, the officer is in no way to
testify at this particular point. Okay.
So, I think you need to cross that bridge
5 also, okay? So, I'll just let you know that,
because as I say, as at present, I’m concerned
about some of the informations I'm seeing where
even the Justice of the Peace hasn't signed it
and they write down section, what is it, 23 of
10 the POA – Provincial Offences Act.
These statements that are made here are not
uncommon, even in criminal matters, and have
been in effect since back, what is it, back to
1990, when they came in and amended the
15 Criminal Code to allow officers who are in
remote areas, say up in the north or northwest
region, some people who have been up in Hudson
Bay are able to sign an information from there
by endorsing the criminal information, and it's
20 a statement and that statement is they're
swearing that the contents of the information
to be true, okay, now it's deemed sworn, then
the Justice of the Peace endorses the
information. And that’s a process, as I say,
25 that’s been going on for 30 years.
Now, this process right now is something
that's going on since, for what, two years now
or two and a half years since the pandemic.
Now, I think we've moved out of the pandemic.
30
I don't know if that's been official yet but,
you know, we seem to be getting out of that.
In any event, we now have a situation where
 13.
R. v. Tomislav Roki

the question comes in, at what stage does the

officer require now to come back before me to
swear this information, or is it just sign a
statement and we forget about it?
5 Okay. So, in this situation, I know that
Justice of the Peace Budaci, with the greatest
of respect for him, may have just missed the
fact that it wasn’t signed. Because I can tell
you, if I saw this, I would probably send it
10 back, okay, for a proper signature. Because I
do believe when it says signature of informant,
it isn't there just because they wanted to put
it there, it's there for a purpose. Okay?
So, what I need to hear from you at this
15 particular point, and it's probably more
difficult than if it was a situation where the
officer was there – I mean, the officer could
be called as a witness.
MS. MARCON: Yes.
20 THE COURT: I was present, yes, and I guess I
forgot to sign it, and this type of thing. So,
you know, I'm only thinking out loud right now,
okay.
So, I'm going to take a recess, I'm going to
25 give you an opportunity – both you and Mr.
Bassi to – to consider that argument, but – but
as I say, I hear exactly what you say. I
think, what is it, there's a case under the
Criminal Code, is it Bobcaygeon? Is that from
30
way back?
MS. MARCON: It....
THE COURT: I think that dealt with the issue
 14.
R. v. Tomislav Roki

about the informant.

MS. MARCON: Yes.
THE COURT: You know, so – I mean, there are
cases there, but also section – nobody's
5 referred to section 25, and I will go into
section 25 of the Provincial Offences Act,
which is called the sufficiency of an
information.
MS. MARCON: Yes.
10 THE COURT: Okay. And I know that in there, it
sets out a number of different things, so I'll
take a look at that, too. So, as I say, I'm –
I'm just handed this, so...
MS. MARCON: Yes.
15 THE COURT: ...I'm telling you my concerns,
okay?
MS. MARCON: That’s fine.
THE COURT: Okay. So, we’ll take a recess and
let's come back – how much time....
20

R E C E S S

U P O N R E S U M I N G:

25 CLERK OF THE COURT: Provincial Offences Court

will now commence. His Worship Burgess is
presiding. Thank you, Your Worship. Good
morning. You may be seated.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, we
30
can return to the Roki matter.
MS. MARCON: Yes, thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Is there
 15.
R. v. Tomislav Roki

anything further you want to add, any other

concerns?
MS. MARCON: Right. So, Your Worship, just in
response to a couple of the – the things that
5 you....
THE COURT: Just a little louder, please.
MS. MARCON: Sure. In response to some of the
issues and comments that Your Worship made, and
I certainly can't comment on what other issues
10 Your Worship has seen in these courts, because
I'm not obviously a part of that, I'm here only
specifically on these types of cases.
And if there is something, then certainly
something needs to be changed, but I would ask
15 Your Worship to realize that perhaps focusing
on the issues on this case and – and not taking
in any other issues in different situations not
knowing what the fact situations are, would be
the appropriate way.
20 I understand, Your Worship, that you're
right, since COVID there had to be some changes
and that was done in the form – the way I
understand it – again, I'm not in this court on
a regular basis – is that there is a form, an
25 officer provides that with a synopsis of the –
the case and the information and any summons,
and it's done by way of a basket motion, if I
can call it that, but behind the scenes is my
understanding of how it works.
30
So – and I think that in section – sorry, I
think it’s 23. Yes. Section 23 doesn't
specifically say that the officer must attend
 16.
R. v. Tomislav Roki

before the Justice of the Peace, so it allows,

in any form. And that was the form that was
probably created because of COVID, but not that
it has to be solely for COVID. So, that's my
5 understanding of how it works, so I can't make
any further comment in regard to that.
So, I appreciate that, sadly, and I agree
with you, with COVID, we had to adapt. There's
been changes. Why can't we go back – I'm a big
10 proponent of, boy, oh boy, I would love to go
back and have it be the – the old way of doing
things, but it also has opened the eyes of
everyone that there were some things that were
necessary, were done out of habit because
15 that's the way it's done, and I would submit to
you one of those habits similarly is an
informant, because in Criminal Code cases, sign
the information and it's done and carried
through. But as the – the Ontario court –
20 Superior Court of Justice indicates, it’s
actually not a requirement under the Provincial
Offences.
So, there have also been efficiencies that
have come out of this pandemic and this is one
25 of them that, you know, rather than taking the
time, officers having to come in and go before
a Justice of the Peace, that it can be done in
a different form. And – and I think that there
are things to be said about some of the
30
efficiencies, but, again, my personal comments
on wanting to go back to normal because I'm old
school, not necessarily the – the way it has to
 17.
R. v. Tomislav Roki

be, is all I'm saying.

And I – and I understand that when such
information – and I'm going to hazard to guess
– that the reason that the requirement is that
5 a synopsis be provided is because, again, when
it is in person, if the Justice of the Peace
isn't satisfied with the information that's put
before them, they can generally ask the officer
for that type of information.
10 So, the synopsis being attached also
satisfies the Justice of the Peace in what he
or she needs, which is the reasonable and
probable grounds. So, again, in my submission,
that signature of the informant on the
15 information is not a requirement because the
officer – the Justice of the Peace is
satisfying himself with that synopsis that is
before them.
So, aside from that, I do have submissions
20 with respect to disclosure, but I'll save that
because it may or may not be an issue any
further, depending on your....
THE COURT: I don't see that as an issue.
Okay. Mr. Bassi, something you want to say
25 with respect to this?
MR. BASSI: Yes. My friend talks about habits,
old habits. I would suggest they're bad habits
and that they reflect on the administration of
justice.
30
We talk about R. v. Singh. R. v. Singh,
there was an error in the year of the offence.
That can be amended. In R. v. Massicotte, the
 18.
R. v. Tomislav Roki

– it was an illegible signature. Those are

non-fatal errors. What we have here is a fatal
error.
I would submit that the information before
5 the Court is defective on its face and, as
such, it constitutes a nullity.
I further submit that the information lacks
the name and signature of the police officer
who swore the information and therefore, the
10 Justice of the Peace erred in law in issuing
the said information, which is defective on its
face.
It is further submitted that the presiding
Justice of the Peace does not have the
15 jurisdiction to rehabilitate an information
that is a nullity ab initio.
It is further submitted that section 34 of
the provincial act – Provincial Offences Act
does not permit the presiding Justice of the
20 Peace to make certain amendments to an
information; however, such amendments must not
prejudice the defendant in court proceedings.
Further submitted that the name and
signature of the police officer swearing the
25 said information before the issuing Justice of
the Peace is an essential element of the
validity of the information. The lack of such
a name is not an administrative error and
therefore cannot be corrected by a court
30
amendment.
The presiding Justice of the Peace has no
information on the face of the information as
 19.
R. v. Tomislav Roki

to who the police officer was that swore the

information originally and therefore, neither
the presiding Justice of the Peace nor the
defendant know who it was that presented the
5 document to the issuing Justice of the Peace.
The lack of that information removes the
authority of the presiding Justice of the Peace
to amend the said information pursuant to
section 34 of the Provincial Offences Act.
10 Therefore, it is submitted that the
defective information cannot be amended as it
is a nullity ab initio. It is further
submitted that the presiding Justice of the
Peace has the jurisdiction to quash the said
15 information on the ground of its nullity.
It is my opinion that the three cases
referred to by my friend’s office deal with
Part I offences; however, this case is a Part
III Provincial Offence. It is further my
20 opinion that the three cases referred to by the
prosecutor deal with minor administrative
errors, such as the wrong year or the inability
to recognize a signature; however, in all of
the circumstances, the face of the information
25 is not defective.
It is my submission that the case before
the Court is different than the three cases
submitted by the Provincial prosecutor, in that
the defect is on the face of the information
30
itself and that defect goes to the validity of
the information.
In other words, without the signature – the
 20.
Ruling – Burgess, J.P.

name and signature of the police officer, the

Justice of the Peace could not have issued the
information. This is a defect which is not
amendable.
5 I therefore request Your Worship to nullify
this information. Specifically, you cannot amend
a document that is a nullity from the beginning.
In this case, the issuing Justice of the Peace
should not have signed the information because it
10 was defective on its face, and those are my
respectful submissions, Your Worship.

R U L I N G

15 BURGESS, J.P. (Orally):

Okay. First of all, with regard to the issue of
the matter for Mr. Roki, there is no question
with regard to this matter, these matters should
be tried on their merits, and I think that’s the
20 general tenor of what the Superior Court has
indicated in this matter.

I initially, in listening to the argument with

regard to it, felt that, okay, fine, the officer
25 has not signed the document and - but His Worship
Budaci has signed it. So, knowing that the
responsibility of Justice of the Peace Budaci was
to hear this matter, hear and consider the
allegations of the informant and where a case is
30
made out and issue a summons, because that's what
was issued here, was a summons was issued.
 21.
Ruling – Burgess, J.P.

Now, as I pointed out and I have indicated to

you, under the ways we used to do before the
pandemic, the officer would be before His
Worship Budaci, and in this case, the officer was
5 not.

Now, the officer has filed a statement, and I

felt that – and I have to tell you, if the
officer had of signed the statement, I would have
10 found that the information was fine and that we
could proceed on the matter, but to my surprise
looking at the statement, the statement was never
signed by the officer also.

15 So, we don't have the officer swearing to the

information, we don't have the officer signing
the statement, and the statement itself is made
out so the Justice of the Peace allows the
officer to swear remotely, but the officer does
20 need at least to sign the statement indicating
that he's swearing the facts contained to be
true.

Because at this present time looking at the

25 document, other than his name printed at the top
of the information, there's nothing indicated
here that this officer was even involved in this
matter. Looking through the statement itself,
the officer’s name never even appears on it. So,
30
under the circumstances, I am going to find that
it has failed.
 22.
Ruling – Burgess, J.P.

I would point out, too, initially, when looking

at the documents I have, that there were no
allegations attached and I thought that even
exacerbated the situation, but I was informed by
5 the clerk that these allegations are usually
taken off after they’re sworn to so that the
justice is not confronted with the allegations.
So, that thought of mine did not materialize.

10 But basically what we have here is a situation

where the information, the statement, has never
been signed by the officer, and other than his
name printed at the top of the information,
there's nothing here from Officer Michel as to
15 swearing to the information to be true.

I understand what you're saying, but I think we

have gone further than just say here's a piece of
paper, we’ll call it an information, we're going
20 to try them under the Provincial Offences Act. I
don't think that’s what the Superior Court is
saying.

But certainly, as I say, if that statement had

25 have been signed by the officer, I would have
accepted it, but I can't find anywhere on here,
other than the typing, that Officer Michel was
even involved in this matter.

30
And I see by looking at the information that this
is a very serious matter, and I can tell you I am
not happy having been put in the position that I
 23.
Ruling - Burgess, J.P.

need to say that this is a nullity. Okay?

And I hope that you take it further and see what

happens that way, but I don't know what to say to
5 you, okay, other than the fact that it is a
nullity.

And I understand that the family are here. I

hope they understand what's happening here.
10 Hopefully it’ll get corrected. I don't know if
that’s possible. I see that the limitation
period is gone, so I – okay. All right.
MS. MARCON: Thank you, Your Worship, for
allowing me....
15 MR. BASSI: And I'm going to take this
opportunity to apologize to the family. It is a
very serious matter, a fatality in an accident is
– is tumultuous to anyone. We found it hard to
adjudicate this case, but we have to raise every
20 issue fearlessly for the benefit of our client
and that’s what we’ve done today.
THE COURT: No, I understand that, sir.
MR. BASSI: And I thank Your Worship.
THE COURT: Okay.
25 MR. BASSI: Thank you my friend.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. MARCON: Thank you, Your Worship. That’s my
only matter. If I may be excused, please?
THE COURT: Yes, of course. Thank you very much.
30
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: A signature? A
signature, Your Honour? That’s what my son’s
life is worth, a signature?
 24.
R. v. Tomislav Roki

THE COURT: I'm sorry, sir? Come up here, sir.

I'm....
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Come on, the guy gets
away with killing my son...
5 THE COURT: Sir, sir, sir, sir....
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: ...for a signature.
Really?
THE COURT: Okay. All right. I....
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: My son was alive...
10 THE COURT: Thank you, sir....
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: ...in that car for
longer than that gentleman has spent in court,
dying 150 feet from his house.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. I'm sorry, sir,
15 about that. I truly am sorry.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Come on. This isn’t
justice. He’s an 18 year old kid.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Shame on the police.
20 Shame on the police department. Disgusting. And
my brother’s a cop.
...PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED

**********

25

30
 25.
R. v. Tomislav Roki
Certification

FORM 3
ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5(2))
Evidence Act
5 I, Joyce Tuyp, certify that this document is a true and accurate
transcript of the record of R. v. Tomislav Roki at the
Provincial Offences Court, held at 6311 Old Church Road, Caledon
East, Ontario, taken from Recording No. ROKI.dcr, which has been
certified in Form 1.
10

February 23, 2023

_________________ ____________________________________
Date (Signature of authorized person on
behalf of Joyce Tuyp’s Transcripts)

15 7140359941

(Authorized court transcriptionist’s identification number –

if applicable)

Mono, Ontario , Canada.

(Province of signing)
20

25

30