Notice of Motion to Adjourn after a previous adjournment

Gloomfrost
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined:

Notice of Motion to Adjourn after a previous adjournment

Unread post by Gloomfrost on

Hello,

So I'm hoping someone here can suggest what to do here;

I have a speeding ticket case where the officer showed up to my initial trial, then randomly left because of 'an emergency call' (even though he never once checked his radio or other communications device), so the judge felt fair to adjourn it because 'he knew where the officer was and why he couldn't run through trial' and that 'he would do the same for me'. So that's fine, the trial was October 1st and was adjourned to Nov 26th to the agreement of myself and the prosecutor.

Yesterday I got a letter in the mail saying the prosecutor wants to motion to adjourn the trial (again) to Nov 1st (next friday) because the officer has some training or something on the 26th. He dated the request October 15th.

So few questions:
1. Does the 15 day rule apply to courts and prosecutors? I know if I wanted to file a motion I would have to file it 15 days in advance of the trial no?
2. Can he move it again? I already took time off for the 26th, I came on October 1st to my initial trial, and the court house is far from me and the time is in the middle of the day... I have heard multiple times objections to prosecutors requesting to adjourn the trial the second time, with the JP agreeing and staying the trial. But that's when you're AT the court house. Any way to mail or call someone to get it stayed for some reason, or at least 'force' it to run on the 26th as originally planned?
3 (slightly unrelated): The disclosure I got doesn't say anywhere the officer tested his moving radar before or after he pulled me over. I understand that radar must be tested for the ticket to be valid - where does it say this? I know about reasonable doubt but if they ask 'who cares if it's tested or not?', what should I say?

Thanks in advance, and hopefully this will help others wondering about this sort of situation!


Gloomfrost
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined:

Unread post by Gloomfrost on

Ugh so I'm back from my trial/hearing today and have an experience + question to share:
I'll try to keep it short because it's complicated..

June 22 got a speeding ticket 126 in an 80. Requested and received disclosure.
First trial October 1st. Cop LEAVES for an emergency right before my trial - judge adjourns it to Nov 26th (prosecutor suggested) because it was an emergency. -Delay on the prosecution.
Got a letter in the mail on Oct 21st: 'Notice of Motion' to adjourn the Nov 26th trial to Nov 1st as 'the officer has JUST received information about training and will be unavailable to attend the preset date'. Okay so I thought this was my new trial - Nov 1st.
Showed up today, WITH the cop there (I guess he thought the same thing). New justice and new prosecutor, both confused as to why we both showed up as they thought it was going to be a motion hearing.
Anyway some other delays and some reprimanding of the prosecution as they should have known not to put the day on the 26th in the first place or something about swearing an affidavit to something, but when asked I said I am ready to proceed to trial - my goal was to deal with this matter and not have to come back another time. This was like 4:07pm already from a 1:30pm scheduled time.
Justice says we don't have a lot of time and tells the prosecution they would have to deal with moving the trial if they run out of time... prosecution still agrees to run the trial. Cop starts to testify he tested the radar - I object as it was not disclosed to me and that it violated my charter rights. Justice says something about how the charter is used for more serious offenses and they would need more time to run a trial correctly dealing with an objections to do with the charter.. WTF? Prosecution also attempts to argue that not everything needs to be disclosed as per the limits in the Stitchcombie case, and that he is willing to defend against the charter objection if raised.. WTF?
Justice adjourns to Jan 22nd telling me to come back prepared to defend my charter argument.. This makes it the 3rd adjournments by the prosecution.

Now... what do I do? File a Form 4F? This should be a pretty straight-forward case; improper disclosure, as required by the POA 46.2 and the charter. AND a 3rd adjournment at fault of the prosecution. This is outside of the GTA so their adjournments are pretty close together, which is annoying cause I can't use an 11b. But still, is there somewhere that states I have the right to not have to keep coming back to court due to court errors..?! Also, what exactly should I write on the 4F (if I use it), or, what should I come with Jan 22nd...?

I'm also worried about disclosure coming in to me by mail with the testing provided by the officer - can he do this AFTER I put forth a motion for a stay due to non-disclosure. The adjournment didn't sound like it had to do with the disclosure, it sounded like the justice wanted a 'charter' case to be reviewed and ruled on fairly and in full...


User avatar
highwaystar
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 298
Joined:

Posting Awards

Unread post by highwaystar on

If you're raising Charter arguments, you have to file the proper applications (and meet the required notice requirements). Don't think a simply objection is going to cut it--which seems to be the belief you're under.

It seems to me like you are way over your head on this 'simple' case-----you seem to be arguing improper disclosure AND wanting to exclude evidence (i.e. portions of the officer's potential evidence). Both 'charter' arguments have very different procedures to follow.

Unfortunately, too many folks read forums like this one or sites like ticketcombat and actually start to think that all cases are DIY and if they follow the steps they read online, all will work smoothly! That's not the real world----if it were, then lawyers and paralegals wouldn't have thriving practices!


Gloomfrost
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined:

Unread post by Gloomfrost on

Thanks for the reply.

I understand sect 7 of the charter says a motion can be raised at any time. I raised it when the officer testified to testing the radar. It should have been dealt with either way no?

I'm assuming I should file a form 4F, but can I still make a non-disclosure constitutional argument? What's easier/faster/more likely to work? Should I file 2, one for each? CAN I even file 2?






Post Reply

Return to “Courts and Procedure”