My trial is on Feb 14th (2 days away!), for a 16 over (reduced from 23 over) speed offence.

I received a voicemail on the 8th (friday!!) saying I could come pick up my disclosure. I went in person and picked it up but the disclosure was not complete. They stated they were not going to provide any more info and I could take it up at trial. They cite a a case precedent that basically says they don't have to provide the full manual of the radar but I have found there are (at least) two subsequent cases that specifically reference their case and seem to clearly overrule theirs. So, I am pretty sure I can demonstrate incomplete disclosure especially given the officers notes reference using different modes on the radar unit (making it material to my defence to understand more on how the radar works) and with no time to receive additional info I have to take it up in court.

I am not sure if this is sufficient for the judge to stay the case though? Should I just file for adjournment instead? I assume go for a stay and let the crown argue why they should adjourn instead. My counter argument is that I have already taken 2 partial days off work to fight the case and travelled more than 500km round trip at my expense so making a further two trips (one to pick up the additional disclosure and another to come back to trial again) is unreasonable and far more than the penalty ($55) on the face of the ticket....

The normal remedy for what you may believe to be incomplete disclosure is and adjournment. Just because you ask for something in disclosure doesn't mean it will be provided. This next appearance will be your opportunity to tell the Justice of the Peace why you believe that the entire manual is required for your defence.

Out of curiosity, which cases are you referring to?

Fair enough! Thanks for your feedback.

The two cases I found were Thunder Bay (City) v. Millar which references R. v. Oosterman referencing R. v. Reybroek.

Oosterman and Millar both seem to indicate that on the issue of relevancy, while agreeing with Reybroek that it is the obligation of the applicant to prove relevancy and "there is no absolute right to the disclosure of an entire radar manual in speeding cases.", if it is "reasonably possible" that it may be relevant then the information must be disclosed.

In my case the officers notes make reference to using the radar unit in several different modes with abbreviations and even some arcane handwritten symbols which I have no idea what they mean. Since there were multiple vehicles present and clocked (also mentioned in the officers notes) to prepare a proper defence I think I should understand what those operating modes of the radar unit as well as what the overall specifications of range and accuracy are in my case. I think (or at least hope to establish) that there is a reasonable doubt that the reading taken was from my vehicle and not the other vehicle that was also clocked. Worth a shot anyway since my wife and I both agree our (obviously highly biased) view was the other vehicle was going faster.

Now that I read them closer it does seem to be my duty to explain why I need them so a stay is obviously inappropriate. But I still also feel the crown is being a little underhanded (a Friday afternoon voicemail that I can come and pick up the disclosure when the trail is 3 days away???)

Edit: Are there subsequent precedents that overrule these that anyone is aware of?

It also appears that all of these cases are from the Ontario Court of Justice and made by a Justice of the Peace. These decisions are not binding on any other JP.

You should ask for a written explanation of any shortforms used. That may clear up some of the issues.

some of us on here can decipher notes very well, you can scan and add it we can most likely tell you what it means and will clear up the situation. just remove and/or blank out licence plate/your info and officer ID

and it takes more than just reading a manual to be able to operate the units