Bill 36 inserts a single new provision—section 310.061—into the Motor Vehicle Act that makes certain officers "commissioners for taking affidavits" for the limited purpose of affidavits referenced in sections 310.04 and 310.06. The class includes peace officers under subsection 15(1) of the Act, police officers appointed under sections 10, 11 or 17.3 of the Police Act, and members of the RCMP; their status is conferred automatically "by virtue of their offices."
The change is narrow in scope but practical in effect: it allows those officers to swear affidavits that can be read in the Court of King’s Bench under the Commissioners for Taking Affidavits Act without a separate commissioning step. That removes an administrative barrier for affidavit evidence in motor-vehicle matters, but it also raises implementation and oversight questions—training, record-keeping, and the limits of the power—because the bill confers a quasi-judicial function on operational officers without adding procedural safeguards in the text.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds section 310.061, which declares certain peace officers, provincially appointed police officers, and RCMP members to be commissioners for taking affidavits for the specific uses in sections 310.04 and 310.06 of the Motor Vehicle Act. It makes that status automatic because of the officer’s office.
Who It Affects
Affected parties include provincial and municipal police services, RCMP members stationed in New Brunswick, Crown counsel, defence lawyers in motor-vehicle proceedings, and court staff who process affidavit evidence for the Court of King’s Bench.
Why It Matters
By removing a separate commissioning step, the bill streamlines evidence collection and can speed enforcement and prosecution in motor-vehicle cases; at the same time it shifts responsibilities and operational duties onto front-line officers and court administrators, creating new administrative and oversight needs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds one short but targeted provision to the Motor Vehicle Act. That provision creates a class-based commissioning power: certain officers are, because of their job title, authorized to take affidavits that will be read in the Court of King’s Bench under the existing Commissioners for Taking Affidavits Act.
The authorization applies only for the purposes of the two Motor Vehicle Act subsections the amendment cites, so it is not a blanket commissioning power for all provincial business.
Practically, the change removes a procedural step that previously required a separate commissioner (often a justice of the peace, lawyer, or clerk) to swear or certify affidavits used in those motor-vehicle proceedings. Instead, the investigating or enforcing officer can both prepare and swear the affidavit, then have that affidavit admitted to the King’s Bench under the referenced statute.
That shortens the chain between evidence collection and filing in court and reduces the logistical friction for time-sensitive documents.The bill chooses a class-based approach rather than individual appointments: it names categories of officers (peace officer under subsection 15(1), police appointed under specified Police Act sections, and RCMP members) and ties the authority to the office itself. There is no accompanying text about training, record-keeping, limits on scope beyond the two cited Motor Vehicle Act provisions, or mechanisms to revoke or discipline commissioning authority.
Those implementation details will fall to the departments, police services, and courts to resolve when they operationalize the change.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates section 310.061 in the Motor Vehicle Act, adding a new statutory commissioning power.
The new power is limited to "the purposes of sections 310.04 and 310.06" of the Motor Vehicle Act — the amendment does not expand commissioning for other statutes.
Who qualifies: peace officers under subsection 15(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, police officers appointed under sections 10, 11 or 17.3 of the Police Act, and members of the RCMP.
The status is automatic "by virtue of their offices," meaning no separate individual commissioning or paperwork is required in the statute itself.
Affidavits taken under this authority are expressly to be read in The Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick under the Commissioners for Taking Affidavits Act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds a dedicated commissioning provision to the Motor Vehicle Act
The bill inserts a single new provision immediately after section 310.06 rather than amending multiple sections. Placing the provision here signals the legislature intends the new commissioning power to operate in the immediate statutory neighborhood—i.e., for affidavit procedures already contained in those motor-vehicle provisions—rather than as a general expansion of commissioning authority across government.
Defines who is a commissioner for taking affidavits and limits the purpose
Section 310.061 names three categories of officers and declares them to be commissioners for taking affidavits specifically for the Motor Vehicle Act provisions cited. The provision ties the power to office-holding, not to an individual appointment process, and explicitly confines the power to affidavits to be read in the Court of King’s Bench under the Commissioners for Taking Affidavits Act. That dual limitation—by officer category and by purpose—narrows the statutory reach but delegates operational details to other actors.
Authorizes use of existing affidavit-admission procedures in King’s Bench
The amendment does not create a new affidavit regime; it merely makes certain officers eligible to operate within the existing admission framework of the Commissioners for Taking Affidavits Act. That keeps evidentiary standards and the Court’s gatekeeping functions intact, but it also means any procedural obligations imposed by that Act (formalities for signing, oath language, certification) now attach to these officers’ actions and to court staff who receive the affidavits.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Provincial and municipal police services — they can streamline evidence workflows by having investigating officers swear affidavit statements on the spot, reducing logistical delays and reliance on external commissioners.
- Crown prosecutors — faster access to admitted affidavit evidence can speed case preparation and reduce scheduling conflicts for hearing dates tied to motor-vehicle matters.
- Court administration (King’s Bench) — fewer administrative steps to validate affidavits may reduce document-processing burdens and accelerate docket flow for motor-vehicle files.
Who Bears the Cost
- Front-line officers and police services — they absorb added duties (properly drafting, swearing, and preserving affidavits) and may need training, templates, and record-management changes.
- Defence counsel and affected motorists — streamlined affidavit procedures can increase reliance on written sworn statements instead of live testimony, affecting cross-examination opportunities and defence strategy.
- Provincial justice or public-safety departments — they may need to fund implementation activities (training, standard forms, supervision) without explicit transitional funding in the bill.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades administrative convenience—speeding the route from investigation to court filing—against procedural safeguards and uniformity: giving operational officers automatic commissioning power improves efficiency but raises real questions about training, standards, and oversight that the text does not address.
The bill's economy—one short subsection—deliberately avoids procedural detail. That brevity is efficient but shifts multiple practical questions to implementation.
First, "by virtue of their offices" grants automatic authority but says nothing about required training, approved oath language, or record-keeping standards. If officers begin to take and file affidavits routinely, courts and counsel will rely on consistent formats and disclosure practices; the statute does not create those standards.
Second, the provision limits the power to affidavits "to be read in The Court of King’s Bench...under the Commissioners for Taking Affidavits Act," which preserves the existing legal framework but also raises the question whether affidavits so taken are equally admissible in other tribunals or related provincial processes. Third, naming RCMP members alongside provincially appointed police brings in federal personnel; while the text simply confers a functional status within a provincial statute, operational coordination (who issues guidance, who trains) will require intergovernmental cooperation.
Finally, the bill does not include oversight or revocation mechanisms for misuse or errors in affidavit-taking. It also does not define the outer limits of the referenced Motor Vehicle Act subsections; disputes over whether a particular affidavit falls within the permitted purpose could prompt early litigation or administrative friction.
These are practical implementation gaps rather than legal showstoppers, but they matter: convenience without clarity can cause inconsistency and procedural disputes down the road.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.