Court date interferes with disclosure?

007don
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2016 4:19 pm

Court date interferes with disclosure?

by: 007don on
Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:48 am

Hey everyone,

First off, thank you to everyone who has provided advice and help with my case thus far!

Just to recap, on June 12th 2016 I received a ticket for "Disobey Stop Sign - Failing to Stop" in Mississauga, however I was certain that I did stop and I have dashcam footage (https://youtu.be/LWPos-DPscM?t=81) that I feel would help (however it does look super close to a rolling stop).

Now I filed for notice to appear for trial the very next morning, on June 13th and was told that in 30 days (including weekends) I would get my trial date in the mail.

July 12th came and went and I did not get anything.

July 14th in the morning I called the courthouse asking for them to follow up, they said no date has been set yet and I should give it another week.

I gave it another week and nothing came yet, so I called today, July 25 asking for them to follow up. They said the date was booked on July 20 for me to appear in court on September 7.

My concern is, this does not allow me enough time to receive my disclosure request, which I will file today, July 25. On the Mississauga disclosure website (https://www7.mississauga.ca/cityforms/legislative/) it says that it takes 6 to 8 weeks to obtain, which would cut it reallllyyy close to my court date. Btw I will not be using their disclosure form, I have taken a template from this site to use :) However, is this grounds for me to file for a motion to stay since I cannot properly defend myself without the requested disclosure?

Thanks so much in advance!




jsherk
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 1722
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:18 pm

by: jsherk on
Mon Jul 25, 2016 12:53 pm

The courts have decide that the remedy for not providing disclosure is to set a new trial date and tell prosecutor to provide it. So filing a stay motion at your first trial date is pretty much useless as it will not be granted. Now if you get to your second trial date and they still don't have disclosure, then depending on the Justice of the Peace, a stay motion may or may not work. If you get to a third trial date and still don't have disclosure, then there is a very good chance that a stay motion would definitely work.

So basically if you get your disclosure less than 2 weeks before trial, then you should be asking for an adjournment because you have not had time to properly review it and prepare your defence. But you will still have to show up for your court date, and yes it is a pain because you will have to come back again, but that is just the way it works.

And no it will not help you that the intersection now has lights instead of stop signs.
+++ This is not legal advice, only my opinion +++


User avatar
Decatur
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:31 am

Posting Awards

Moderator

by: Decatur on
Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:06 pm

I would also strongly suggest that you avoid using the term "rolling stop" at anytime while you are in court. You either stopped or you didn't. And you didn't. You don't have to prove that you stopped though, the prosecution does. I certainly wouldn't use that video.


007don
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2016 4:19 pm

by: 007don on
Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:28 pm

Thanks so much for the answers guys!! :) The only reason I would've liked to have used the footage is due to the fact at the 1:43 mark you can clearly see the two vehicles to my left impeding the officers vision as he's situated on that very side as well. Is it possible to screenshot that very moment and use it as evidence or is that incredibly sketch as it sounds since I'd be showing a specific event and not the video itself? Sorry for the silly questions lol. Without the footage though, doesn't this essentially turn into a he said/she said case? I intend on crossexamining the officer and asking questions such as how many tickets did you hand out that day, what car I was driving, was there traffic at the intersection where the offense in question was committed and etc. in order to test his memory and see if he slips up


argyll
VIP
VIP
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:30 am

Posting Awards

by: argyll on
Mon Jul 25, 2016 2:50 pm

All he has to say is he saw a car not stop, he pulled over that car, he id'd the driver through photo id and that's it. Even if he got the colour wrong on your car it wouldn't get his testimony thrown out.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “Courts and Procedure”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests