A speeding traffic ticket is subject to section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:21 pm

What Is Proper Disclosure ?

by: Mike4064 on

The disclosure for my ticket has only the date, time, type of radar, serial number and a general map of the area (with a road missing) showing where the officer was positioned. It says nothing about testing the radar prior to use, does not show where my car was at the time of the alleged offence-nothing really that specifically concerns my case. It be used for the many cars that were caught in the fishing hole that day. I could draw that map (probably a more accurate one) looking at Google Maps.

Is this considered lack of adequate disclosure and enough to get an acquittal ? If yes , is there some case I could refer to that you know ?

High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 2111
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:49 pm
Location: Ontario

Posting Awards

by: Stanton on

No, I don't believe a lack of detail in notes would be considered inadequate disclosure. Inadequate disclosure is when you're not provided with something that's required and exists (i.e. refusal to simply give you any notes).

Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:08 pm

Posting Awards

by: iFly55 on

would the disclosure he received help him during cross examination to bring about reasonable doubt?

if OP were to ask, "what time did you test the radar, before and after the shift"... officer will:

A) say he doesn't remember

B) say it's standard practice to test before and after his shift

C) pull out a separate notebook (not-disclosed) with the times

i've read plenty of decisions at the appeal-level, where officers' use of 'standard practice' for their test times brought reasonable doubt; the JP/Justice usually require a specific-time noted somewhere

User avatar
Simon Borys
Posts: 1065
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:20 am

by: Simon Borys on

Actually a complete lack of disclosure as was described above would probably be considered inadequate. Remember that the prosecution's constitutional obligation (per Stinchcombe) is to disclose anything that is not "clearly irrelevant". That applies to the content of documents, not just to the documents themselves. So for example, the prosecutor can't just claim that the disclosure obligation is disclosed just because they disclosed "notes" when there's nothing in those notes.

The procedure would be to bring a s. 7 motion (disclosure falls under s. 7 of the Charter) and as for a remedy of stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

Post a Reply

Return to “Exceeding the speed limit by 16 to 29 km/h”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest