That's what they're supposed to do, in a way. Before the trial, if you've made a stay application based on non-disclosure, the Justice would review it and decide what to do. That is, if the Justice knows what he's doing. If the non-disclosed material wouldn't have affected the outcome, he or she can rule against the stay. That said, they (the Crown) should err on the side of providing disclosure if requested. What happened at your trial was rather bizarre, to put it mildly.

What happened was a fraudulent trial. It's not a loophole to ask to have a clear understanding...it is a RIGHT. We all have a RIGHT to a fair trial. It cannot be fair if the evidence is not disclosed in its entirety.

No-one has a right to enter a plea for you either...that is fraudulent practice. only an accused can enter a plea. Therefore what happened was fraudulent, no doubt about it. I would appeal on the grounds that you were not given a fair trial and that you did not receive full disclosure....BUT most importantly you should also appeal on the grounds that you lack full understanding of what was happening due to the FACT that you were denied YOUR RIGHT to a fair trial. What has happened is a total wrongdoing.... but it happens daily in courts.

appreciate your clarification. in the same court under the same judge on that day, one poor defendant is saying he didn't receive disclosure for his speeding ticket. that judge determined that he trusted the cop got enough training on the radar, tested and used it properly. In that way he said there would no disclosure for that poor guy. It doesn't look like the judge is not familiar with the law and proper procedure. he is doing it on purpose - assuming nobody will bother to appeal or can afford the time and money for appeal. He is there to maintain law and order by violating the law.

You have to remember.... although the TRUTH is that we have a RIGHT to a fair trial...it is highly unlikely that we will get one. the reason is:

You are the defendant and you represent self.

The plaintiff is 'Province of Ontario.'


Who does the officer represent ?

Who does the judge represent ?

Who does the prosecutor represent ?

Yes thats right....'Province of Ontario'

Doesn't sound too fair to me.... !!!!!

But then we must not question facts...just do as we are told and suffer the consequences of that injustice.

Acts are not laws.... but legislations created to bring in REVENUE....

In other words a business... Province of Ontario is a corporation and trades as a business just like the police dept does. I think they should change the name from Ontario Court of Justice to Ontario Court of Business.

Any news on what happened?