received my disclosure today.

this is ALL I got in terms of notes. No record of calibration before or after.

my question is, should I send a second request for the officer's notes from the day? or can I run with this and press the point that he didn't test the unit before or after?

my second question is regarding the numbers- he says he was out of the Veh at "523" and pulled me over at "524".. i was puled over around exit 566 , corresponding to a KM of about 556 on the 401.. any ideas on what the numbers could mean?

thanks in advance

Relevant case-law states that the requirement for testing times is up to the presiding trial justice (justice of peace). So a JP can be satisfied that the officer tested the device before and after his shift without testing times.

You can read more about testing times here: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com ... tml#p30553

You can also submit another disclosure request asking specifically for the officer's testing time; it may be available in a separate notebook.

I'm not sure about the 523/524 they could be highway km markers; you can try using Google Streetview around the area you were stopped and look for those markers.

I've had a read around notations already. My thinking is that because they didn't provide it to me, they can't use his day book as evidence so as of right now there is no written evidence of any testing at all.

Would I be wise to request additional notes, which could contain evidence against me?

R. v. Dixon, [1998] 1 SCR 244 - Supreme Court of Canada

55 It must be remembered that defence counsel is not entitled to assume at any point that all relevant information has been disclosed to the defence. Just as the Crown's disclosure obligations are ongoing, and persist throughout the trial process, so too does defence counsel's obligation to be duly diligent in pursuing disclosure. To do nothing in the face of knowledge that relevant information has not been disclosed will, at a minimum, often justify a finding of lack of due diligence, and may, in certain circumstances, support an inference that counsel made a strategic decision not to pursue disclosure. In this case, the summary in the occurrence report indicates that Daye's statement would very likely meet the test for relevance set out in Stinchcombe. When defence counsel reviewed the occurrence report, he knew or should have known that the Crown had failed in its disclosure obligations. When this became apparent, defence counsel should have brought this matter to the attention of the trial judge at the earliest opportunity. In the circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeal was right to conclude that at this point, defence counsel was faced with a choice: "call for the statements or live without them" (p. 93).

if you know that the crown has disclosure (ie. additional notes, video, witness statements) and you choose not to request for it; you can not object to the use of this information at trial; the crown will most likely disclose all the information that they will use at trial.

disclosure issues have to be remedied before the trial; if there are problems with disclosed & non-disclosed items during the trial, it may be your fault because you failed to exercise due diligence and made a "strategic decision not to pursue it"... therefore crown will be allowed to proceed with their case

hmm interesting!

in my first request I did specifically ask for "a full copy of the police officers notes on the day of the alleged offence", but you think I'm best off asking specifically for testing times anyways?