RI, thanks for your valuable input. Can you clarify a couple points:



1. What would be the likely result of this argument? Stay or adjournment?

2. Do the notes have to say "tested per manufacturer's specs" or is tested at 9:55pm sufficient?

3. What is the significance of Schnall being an appellate justice? Does her decision therefore carry greater weight?

Too bad the Niewiadomski case isn't available on CanLII!!!!

If the defendant specifically said in the disclosure request: "I want the officer's notes showing when the tests were done," probably a stay. Otherwise, I'd bet on an adjournment.



"Test ok @ 9:55" should do it. What the officer did to test it can be asked at trial and compared to the manufacturer's procedures.



Yes, since she sits in a higher court, her decisions do carry greater weight. She also is a full-fledged Justice who has been to law school and has a better understanding of law than the vast majority of JPs. Some JPs take their jobs very seriously and do their research thoroughly (names like Cuthbertson and Quon stick out in my mind), but many are not as well-versed, as we all know.

_________________
* The above is NOT legal advice. It is an opinion only. By acting on anything I have said, you assume full responsibility for any outcome and its consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com