Ontario traffic tickets: what day the 15 days runs from, and what step comes after a conviction entered in your absence
With a ticket in hand there are three routes: ask to have the matter tried, meet with the prosecutor to discuss resolution, or plead guilty. The meeting route carries a 15-day limit, and whether it is there at all depends on what the ticket itself says. Doing nothing is deemed not to dispute the charge; so is having responded and then not making it to that meeting. Where a conviction has already been entered in the defendant's absence, an application to strike it out can be made within 15 days of becoming aware of the conviction.
The three routes after a ticket arrives
Provincial offences in Ontario run through the procedure set out in the Provincial Offences Act (R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33), and the ticket itself is called an offence notice in that Act.
Asking to have the matter tried. What the provision describes is giving a notice of intention to appear: indicating that you intend to go to court to enter a plea and have the matter tried.
5 (1) A defendant who is served with an offence notice may give notice of intention to appear in court for the purpose of entering a plea and having a trial of the matter.
Meeting with the prosecutor to discuss resolution. This route carries a 15-day limit:
5.1 (1) This section applies where the offence notice requires the notice of intention to appear to be filed in person in the form prescribed under section 13.
Option for meeting with the prosecutor
(2) Instead of filing a notice of intention to appear under subsection 5 (3), a defendant may request a meeting with the prosecutor to discuss the resolution of the offence by,
(a) indicating that request on the offence notice; and
(b) delivering the offence notice to the court office specified on it within 15 days after the defendant was served with the offence notice.
Two things have to be done: indicate that request on the offence notice, then deliver the offence notice to the court office specified on it. The 15 days runs from the day the offence notice was served.
This route is not on every ticket. Whether it is there depends on what the ticket itself says.
Pleading guilty. The Act provides for this separately (s.7, s.8); this page does not go into it.
The three routes sit side by side in time. As s.9(1)(a) below shows, where 15 days pass after service of the offence notice and not one of the three has been done, meaning no notice of intention to appear, no request for a meeting and no guilty plea, the proceeding turns in a direction of its own. So the 15 days is not a number attached to the meeting route alone. It governs whether anything is done at all.
Being deemed not to dispute reaches further than doing nothing
Deemed not to dispute charge
9 (1) A defendant is deemed to not wish to dispute the charge where,
(a) at least 15 days have elapsed after the defendant was served with the offence notice and the defendant did not give notice of intention to appear under section 5, did not request a meeting with the prosecutor in accordance with section 5.1 and did not plead guilty under section 7 or 8;
(b) the defendant requested a meeting with the prosecutor in accordance with section 5.1 but did not attend the scheduled meeting with the prosecutor; or
(c) the defendant reached an agreement with the prosecutor under subsection 5.1 (7) but did not appear at a sentencing hearing with a justice under subsection 5.1 (8).
Three situations stand side by side. Where any one of them holds, the result is the same: this person is deemed to not wish to dispute the charge.
(a) is the one usually talked about. At least 15 days have elapsed after service of the offence notice, and no notice of intention to appear was given, no meeting was requested, and no guilty plea was entered under s.7 or s.8. Not one of the three was done.
(b) and (c) are the two in this subsection that get missed. (b) covers a defendant who did request a meeting with the prosecutor in accordance with s.5.1 but did not attend the scheduled meeting. (c) covers a defendant who did reach an agreement with the prosecutor but did not appear at the sentencing hearing with a justice.
Anyone falling into these two had already done something: one responded to the ticket, the other had got as far as an agreement. This subsection does not look at those steps. It looks at whether the person was there. Miss that one appearance and what was done earlier leaves no cushion behind it, and the position landed in is the same as that of someone who never responded at all.
Not being able to make a meeting that was arranged, or not getting there on the day of a sentencing hearing, are real enough situations. Situations of that kind are not handled in s.9. They are handled later, in s.11.
Once deemed not to dispute, the justice examines the certificate
Being deemed not to dispute does not leave the matter there. The subsection that follows sets out what the justice is to do.
Action by justice
(2) Where a defendant is deemed to not wish to dispute the charge, a justice shall examine the certificate of offence and shall,
(a) where the certificate of offence is complete and regular on its face, enter a conviction in the defendant's absence and without a hearing and impose the set fine for the offence; or
(b) where the certificate of offence is not complete and regular on its face, quash the proceeding.
What the justice examines is the certificate of offence. From there, only two outcomes follow:
| The state of the certificate | What the justice is to do |
|---|---|
| Complete and regular on its face | Enter a conviction in the defendant's absence and without a hearing, and impose the set fine for the offence |
| Not complete or not regular on its face | The proceeding is quashed |
The first is written plainly: a conviction can be entered with the defendant not present and without a hearing having taken place. Many people assume a ticket always has to go through a court date first. That is not what this step says.
The word shall appears twice in this subsection: the justice shall examine the certificate, and shall then land on one of the two courses above according to the state of the certificate.
As for what makes a certificate complete and regular on its face, the provision sets no standard, and this page draws no inference either. That is what the justice determines at this step.
Already convicted in absence: the 15 days runs from the day it became known
Application to strike out conviction
11 (1) A defendant who was convicted without a hearing may, within 15 days of becoming aware of the conviction, apply to a justice to strike out the conviction.
Striking out the conviction
(2) Upon application under subsection (1), a justice shall strike out a conviction if satisfied by affidavit of the defendant that, through no fault of the defendant, the defendant was unable to appear for a hearing or for a meeting under section 5.1 or the defendant did not receive delivery of a notice or document relating to the offence.
Three things in this section need to be seen clearly.
First, the start point. What it says is within 15 days of becoming aware of the conviction, running from the day the conviction became known, not from the day the conviction was entered. Those two dates are often far apart: a conviction in absence happens, by its nature, while the person is not there, and many people find out that such a conviction exists only when a notice demanding payment arrives, or while dealing with something else. Counting back from the day of the conviction makes it easy to assume the time ran out long ago. The other two 15-day counts above, in s.5.1 and in s.9, both run from the day the offence notice was served. This one does not. Counting from service, or from the conviction, both come out several days short of the real count.
The word used here is becoming aware. It lands on this person knowing about it, not on where a document was sent. That connects with the second situation in s.11(2), which is precisely about not receiving delivery of a notice or document relating to the offence.
Second, the wording is shall strike out. Where the conditions are met, the justice shall strike out the conviction, not may strike it out. That much is written without ambiguity.
Third, the conditions themselves have to be proved. Two situations follow: being unable to appear for a hearing or for a meeting under s.5.1; or not receiving delivery of a notice or document relating to the offence. The qualifier through no fault of the defendant is written ahead of these two situations, so "did not make it" and "through no fault of the defendant, did not make it" are not the same thing.
This also has to be proved by affidavit of the defendant. That item appears on the Legal services page. As for how far such an affidavit has to go, the provision does not say, and this page draws no inference.
The hard part is not the provisions, it is matching the step
The provisions are public, they can be looked up, and they are not hard to read. What is hard is matching the matter in hand to the step in the provisions it belongs to.
There are a few things to match up: whether this ticket carries the option of meeting the prosecutor; what day the 15 days runs from and how many of them are left; whether the matter has not yet fallen into s.9, or a conviction has already been entered in the defendant's absence; and if it has, which day that conviction became known. Get one of these wrong and what follows is a different procedure, with a different deadline attached to it.
On the timing side there is no room to manoeuvre. Once the 15 days in s.9 has run, what comes next is the step where the justice examines the certificate; and by s.11, the start of the 15 days has to be counted again from somewhere else.
The cost of getting it wrong is not symmetrical either. Get it wrong before falling into s.9 and what has to be dealt with is still this ticket, with the choice still in your own hands. Get it wrong only at s.11 and what has to be dealt with is no longer a ticket but a conviction that has been entered, and the provision adds the requirement through no fault of the defendant at that point.
Matching this ticket, these dates, and the step in the provisions they fall under is one thing to finish before anything is done. Consultation rates are on the legal services page.
Common questions
Does being deemed not to dispute mean a conviction has already been entered?
They are not the same thing. What s.9(1) settles is a status: this person is deemed to not wish to dispute the charge. The conviction comes at the next step, entered under s.9(2)(a) after the justice has examined the certificate of offence. Between those two steps sits that examination, and the other branch of it does not end in a conviction. On that branch the proceeding is quashed.
The ticket has no box for meeting the prosecutor. Was it left off by mistake?
Not necessarily. The option comes with a precondition of its own: s.5.1 applies only where the offence notice requires the notice of intention to appear to be filed in person in the form prescribed under section 13. Whether a meeting with the prosecutor can be requested depends on what the ticket itself says.
An agreement has already been reached with the prosecutor. Is there still anything to attend?
s.9(1)(c) sets out a different outcome: after an agreement is reached with the prosecutor there is still a sentencing hearing with a justice, and not appearing at that hearing means the defendant is deemed to not wish to dispute the charge just the same. The agreement itself does not stand in for being there.
No notice was ever received. Which situation is that?
The two situations in s.11(2) are joined by or: one is being unable to appear for a hearing or for a meeting under s.5.1, the other is not receiving delivery of a notice or document relating to the offence. The second does not require the first to be met as well. The qualifier through no fault of the defendant is written ahead of these two situations.
Once the conviction is struck out, is the matter over?
What s.11(2) strikes out is the conviction itself. Another subsection deals with how the proceeding continues after that, and this page does not go into it. Striking out a conviction deals with one thing, that this conviction should not be left standing where the person was not there, and it is not the same as the charge disappearing.
Official sources cited on this page
- Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33 · official text from Ontario e-Laws: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p33 (the wording of the provisions quoted on this page is taken from the official doc version of the same Act: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/docs/90p33_eV020.doc)
- Provisions cited on this page: s.5(1), s.5.1(1), s.5.1(2), s.9(1), s.9(2), s.11(1), s.11(2). Also mentioned, without going into them: s.7, s.8.
The provisions were checked on August 9, 2026. This page covers only what the provisions listed above set out. Where rules are adjusted, the official publication governs.
Official sources cited
Based in Windsor, Ontario. Services in English and Chinese.