Do not proceed to trial without getting disclosure (officer's notes); at this moment, you have no idea what the officer is going to say in his testimony.
It's absolutely in your best interest to file an 11 (b), especially if the delay from the date you "filed your intention to appear" to your "trial" date is 14mths, and all attributed to the crown.
Moreover it doesn't appear to be a slam dunk victory for you. Surely, you've already explained everything you've told us to the prosecutor who refused to withdraw the charge. They would only do this, if there was some prospect of getting a conviction.
I would be prepared to go to trial with insurance documents that you can submit to the courts, and not just go up to the stand and say the insurance company website says this... or i heard it through the grapevine.
idk if this carries any weight, but the French translation of the CAIA does not include the word "or" for S.3 (1), so (a) & (b) might have to be fulfilled. But if the policy # is the same for the old and new car, then (a) could be fulfilled.
quick search of CanLII for s 3(1) of the CAIA returned these:
R. v. Bydeley, 2012 ONCJ 837 (CanLII): http://canlii.ca/t/fwtwr
 Steven Bydeley appeals his convictions of May 24, 2011, on three Provincial Offences: that in the City of Toronto, on March 16, 2010 he failed to have an insurance card, contrary to Section 3(1) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act;
 ...The fact pattern is very similar: Mr. Bydeley, the Appellant here, was operating, or driving the motor vehicle, alleged to have been speeding and for which he was unable to produce proof of valid insurance or his own driver’s licence.
 Her Worship dismisses Mr. Bydeley’s defence that because he handed an expired insurance card to the officer, he complied with the law. She observes “there is no evidence that you had a valid insurance card that day, and it is required by law that you carry at all times an insurance card when you are behind the driver’s seat [sic] and driving a vehicle in the Province of Ontario.” To suggest, as the Appellant does, that any piece of paper indicating that it is an insurance card makes a mockery of the clear intent of the law. I dismiss this ground of appeal.
R. v. Marrocco, 2012 ONCJ 535 (CanLII): http://canlii.ca/t/fshhj
26. Fail to surrender Insurance Card
Section 3(1) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act provides as follows:
“An operator of a motor vehicle on a highway shall have in the motor vehicle at all times,
(a) an insurance card for the motor vehicle; or
(b) an insurance card evidencing that the operator is insured under a contract of automobile insurance,
and the operator shall surrender the insurance card for reasonable inspection upon the demand of a police officer.
27. It is common ground that when the officer made a demand for the defendant’s insurance card, he provided her with a faxed copy of the card, indicating in his evidence that when he insured the vehicle someone from his insurance brokerage advised him not to keep an original insurance card in his vehicle, but rather a copy.
28. Section 1 of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act states that an “insurance card” means,
(a) a Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Card in the form approved by the Superintendent,
(b) a policy of automobile insurance or a certificate of a policy in the form approved by the Superintendent, or
(c) a document in a form approved by the Superintendent;
And “Superintendent” means the Superintendent of Financial Services appointed under the Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997.
29. As such, I find that the defendant did not provide the officer with a valid insurance card as defined. There will be a finding of guilt, and a conviction will be registered.
30. I ask for submissions on penalty please.
R. v. Mir-Husseini, 2008 ONCJ 319 (CanLII): http://canlii.ca/t/1zkc6
3.The issues are ... whether, when called upon to do so by the investigating officer, the defendant failed to produce an insurance card for the motor vehicle which he had been driving.
9.The relevant aspects of Officer Ariss’ testimony in relation to the charges are as follows:
d) When requested by the officer, the defendant was not able to produce a current insurance card for the vehicle; the officer cautioned the defendant, took statements from him, and then charged him with the offences which are before the court.
12.Let me first deal with the charge of failing to surrender insurance card. Section 3(1) (a) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act provides as follows:
“An operator of a motor vehicle on a highway shall have in the motor vehicle at all times, an insurance card for the motor vehicle, and the operator shall surrender the insurance card for reasonable inspection upon the demand of a police officer.”
13.There is no evidence before the court to contradict the evidence of officer Ariss who testified that while in the process of investigating the incident, he made a demand for the defendant’s insurance card, which the defendant failed to provide.
14.Consequently, I find that the prosecution has proven that charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and a conviction is registered.