The respondents acknowledge that Fach is a binding
decision, but submits that, because it is an endorsement, it has
limited precedential value and is not decisive of the issue before
us. In addition, the respondents rely on the factual differences
between the two cases.
 I agree that the factual context of Fach differs from the
case before us. There, the accused was never arraigned and
no plea was taken before the charges were withdrawn. Unlike
this case, the judge in Fach never became the “trial judge” and,
as such, never gained jurisdiction to hear a free-standing costs
 I also agree that reasons given by way of endorsement are
mainly directed at giving the immediate parties an understanding of why the court disposed of the appeal as it did. Jurisprudential principles intended to be articulated for the first time
take the form of written judgments. Care must be taken not to
construe an endorsement as supporting broad principles that
were not specifically addressed: see R. v. Singh (2014), 120 O.R.
(3d) 76,  O.J. No. 1858, 2014 ONCA 293, at para. 12; R. v.
Timminco Ltd. (2001), 54 O.R. (3d) 21,  O.J. No. 1443,
42 C.R. (5th) 279 (C.A.), at paras. 35-36.
 That said, the weight to be given to an endorsement
will vary widely. Sometimes, the general principles of law have
already been established by full written reasons in prior cases
and it is only necessary for the court to apply those principles to
the case before it. Sometimes, the jurisprudential heavy lifting
in the particular case has been done by the court at first
instance and there is little, if anything, for the appellate court to
add apart from its agreement with that reasoning.
 The endorsement in Fach expressed its substantial
agreement with the reasoning of the judge at first instance who
observed that [at para. 4]
. . . when the question of jurisdiction is tested against the functional and
structural approach set out in R. v. 9746497 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Dunedin
Construction)  3 S.C.R. 575, 159 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (S.C.C.) at 355, it is
clear that the overriding function of the summary conviction courts is to try
criminal cases. It is not to fix costs.
The endorsement also cited appellate and Supreme Court of
Canada jurisprudence for the general principle that absent a
finding of abuse or other flagrant impropriety, it is not for the
summary conviction court judge or the accused to determine
how the limited resources of the summary conviction court
should be used. Thus, the weight to be accorded to Fach must
take into consideration the reasons it endorsed and the jurisprudence on which it relied.