One of the most common questions criminally accused people in Ontario ask is:
“If the police officer doesn’t show up in court, does my case automatically end?”
The short answer: no — not automatically. But an officer’s failure to appear can have significant consequences for how the Crown proceeds and how your defence lawyer responds.
Whether an absent officer helps or harms your case depends on when the absence occurs, why the officer is required, and how prepared both the Crown and your lawyer are to respond. This article explains how Ontario courts handle these situations and how defence strategy can influence outcomes, including adjournments, Charter challenges, motions to dismiss, and even stays of proceedings.
Canadian criminal procedure distinguishes between administrative appearances and evidentiary hearings.
At early court appearances — such as first appearances, bail reviews, and case management conferences — police officers are not routinely required to attend. These dates are administrative; they involve scheduling and procedural matters, not the presentation of evidence.
As a result, a police officer’s absence at these early dates generally has no legal consequence:
Courts do not dismiss cases because an officer isn’t present for early procedural steps. At this point, the Crown’s obligation is limited to ensuring the accused is properly informed of the charges and that bail conditions are managed.
This aligns with Ontario court practice and the general rule that police attendance is tied to the presentation of evidence, not toscheduling.
The legal landscape changes when a police officer is required to provide evidence. This typically occurs at:
In these contexts, the officer’s testimony may be essential to proving the Crown’s case. Evidence such as identification, observed conduct, statements, or breath analysis results often requires the testifying officer.
The Supreme Court of Canada has consistently ruled that a trial must be fair and that the Crown must have a reasonable opportunity to present its case. However, this does not mean that the Crown has unlimited latitude to produce witnesses on demand.
“Where police evidence forms the backbone of the Crown’s case, an unexplained failure to present that evidence may deprive the defence of meaningful participation and challenge.”
— Heather Spence, Criminal Defence Lawyer & Partner
Let’s break down how the consequences vary depending on when the officer fails to show up:
As noted, no impact. These dates are not evidence-based, and courts will proceed without the officer.
At trial — where evidence is critical — an absent officer can disrupt the Crown’s ability to prove elements of the offence.
The Crown typically has three options:
The court must weigh whether the absence is justified and whether the accused’s right to a timely and fair trial has been prejudiced.
A common misconception is that the Crown is always granted an adjournment when a witness, including a police officer, fails to appear. This is not true.
Ontario courts use a discretionary test to determine whether to adjourn. Factors include:
If the Crown cannot provide a reasonable explanation, a judge may refuse the adjournment or impose conditions.
“An adjournment is not a default solution. Courts balance the accused’s right to proceed with the Crown’s ability to make its case. Where there is repeated delay or lack of preparation, the advantage may shift to the defence.”
— Robbie Tsang, Criminal Defence Lawyer & Managing Partner
Section 11(b)
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees:
“Any person charged with an offence has the right to be tried within a reasonable time.”
Unnecessary adjournments caused by Crown or police delay can become a Charter issue, particularly in older cases or where multiple appearances have been adjourned.
The Supreme Court in R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 , established presumptive ceilings (18 months in provincial court; 30 months in superior/district court). While not every case exceeds these limits, repeated officer non-attendance may support a delay argument.
If a delay is found unreasonable, the judge may stay the proceedings, effectively ending the prosecution.
An experienced criminal defence counsel will consider both immediate tactical responses and long-term strategic angles.
| Defence Response | Description | Potential Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Oppose Adjournment | Argue no justification; press for dismissal | Charges withdrawn or the judge refuses adjournment |
| Charter Delay Application | Demonstrate unreasonable delay | Stay of proceedings |
| No-Case Motion | Argue Crown cannot satisfy the burden | The judge dismisses the charges before the defence evidence |
| Negotiation | Engage Crown early | Withdrawal or plea resolution |
| Alternative Evidence | Identify substitute evidence | Trial proceeds without the officer |
Each option depends on the circumstances, including the officer’s role, the availability of alternative witnesses, and the strength of the documentary evidence.
A powerful tool in defence is a no-case motion, brought under the doctrine that the Crown has failed to meet its burden.
The test for this motion considers whether:
If an officer’s absence leaves the Crown without sufficient evidence, judges may dismiss the case outright.
A police officer scheduled to testify at a trial fails to appear, and no explanation is offered. The defence opposes the Crown’s request for adjournment, arguing that without the officer’s testimony, the Crown cannot prove its case.
The judge:
In a complex impaired driving case, the investigating officer becomes ill on the trial date. The Crown seeks an adjournment.
The judge:
Here, an adjournment is rational because the officer’s role was known and unavoidable.
After multiple court dates have been adjourned due to police scheduling issues, the defence files a Charter application alleging unreasonable delay.
The judge:
This result effectively ends the prosecution.
An officer’s absence does not always doom the Crown’s case if other evidence is admissible, such as:
Crown prosecutors may tender these without officer testimony to preserve the case.
Not true. Outcomes hinge on context, alternative evidence, and defence strategy.
Also false. Courts assess fairness and may deny unjustified adjournments.
If this occurs in your case:
Your lawyer’s decisions at these moments can shape the entire course of the prosecution.
Officer non-attendance impacts many cases, but handling such situations requires precision, timing, and deep procedural knowledge. Mass Tsang’s experienced criminal defence lawyers regularly represent clients in matters where police testimony is critical to the prosecution.
Early legal advice can make the difference between dismissal, adjournment, or an unjust delay.
Contact Mass Tsang today for a confidential consultation.
No. An officer’s absence does not automatically result in a dismissal. The outcome depends on the stage of the case, the officer’s role, and how the court addresses the absence.
Police officers are required to attend when their testimony is necessary, such as at trial, preliminary inquiries, Charter hearings, or other evidentiary proceedings.
Yes, but adjournments are not automatic. Judges consider the reason for the absence, prior delays, and the accused’s Charter rights before granting or refusing an adjournment.
Yes, in some circumstances. If the officer’s absence prevents the Crown from proving its case and an adjournment is refused, the charges may be withdrawn or dismissed.
Yes. Repeated or unjustified absences may constitute unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter and result in a stay of proceedings.
Sometimes. If other admissible evidence exists, such as civilian witnesses or video recordings, the Crown may still proceed.
You should allow your criminal defence lawyer to respond strategically. Decisions about opposing adjournments or bringing motions must be made in real time and depend on the specific facts.
