Is the total payable amount under ss. 3, 9 and 9.1 correct?

[17] Obviously, I appreciate that Doherty J.A. did not carry the court. Feldman J.A. along with Armstrong J.A. held that the proper interpretation of these sections did require the set fine to be correct. However, in my opinion, it is not necessary to extend that reasoning to the total payable amount. The legislature has not made it a requirement of finding the certificate of offence complete and regular on its face, either expressly in the provisions or implicitly with reference to context and purpose. While I agree the correct payable amount is information that could be useful to the defendant in deciding whether to default or not, that is not the question that needs to be answered. The key question is whether the legislature intended that the defendant have that information before a conviction could be entered in a default proceeding. I find that in this instance, the balance dictates a different outcome than in City of London v. Young; an outcome more in line with the dissent of Doherty J.A. I view that the total payable amount which includes costs and the victim fine surcharge, an amount which is just a small percentage of the set fine, is less likely to create significant prejudice to the defendant than an erroneous set fine amount. Thus, the importance of accuracy in the total payable amount is diminished compared to the set fine. This supports my interpretation of what should fall within the phrase “complete and regular on its face.” This is so particularly in light of the absence of any reference to “total payable” in ss. 3, 9 or 9.1.