A motion to quash could have been brought before the justice of the peace on the first appearance date, and he could have proceeded to address the issue of amendment as required. The statement that the appellant relies on at para. 18 of London v. Young regarding s. 34 that “it is clear from reading the entire section that it is intended to apply in the context of a proceeding on an information or certificate that has moved forward to the hearing stage” is an explanation of the difference between the s. 9 default proceeding where there is no appearance by the defendant, and any other proceeding under the Act, where the defendant is ordered to appear.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.