Accused pleaded guilty to a breach of probation and was sentenced to time served. Intention of both Crown and Defence was to ask for an order that accused’s intermittent sentence (from other matters) not be collapsed; however, parties failed to address this at the time of sentence. When the oversight was realized, the matter was brought back before the sentencing judge. Issue of whether judge had power to “clarify the endorsement on the Information to correct an unintended outcome from the passage of sentence” after sentence had already been imposed.

Held: Court not functus; ‘unintended outcome’ corrected.

“Is the type of corrective power set out in Malicia [2006 CanLII 31804 (Ont CA)] and Burke [2002 SCC 55] as being within the inherent jurisdiction of the superior court, also a part of the implied jurisdiction of the Provincial Court? There seems to be no logical or policy reason as to why it would not … It would be fair and maintain the integrity of the process to give effect to the joint intention of the Crown and Defence Counsel.” Endorsement amended.

R. Snukal – Defence Counsel