Hello everyone,

I've been reading a lot of threads on here and so far they are helpful, but I haven't seen anything on this specific question before:

I'm dealing with a 34 km/h over ticket from Hamilton. It was marked down 10 km/h over.

The disclosure package came a couple of weeks ago, and I found it very strange...

They have classified the front of the ticket as 'irrelevant' and did not provide it. Only the backside with the cop's hand written notes were provided. The handwriting is good.

The ticket is not an electronically printed ticket.

What the heck! Has anyone else ever heard of this? Why don't they provide the front? Is it an error, or an indication some mistake was made on their side (such as a filing error, etc.)?

Thank you for any insight.

don't you have the front from your copy. They are the same

ops

@greasespot

Yes I do have my copy of the ticket.

The larger issue here is that the front of the ticket is an important document that the JP must review. And the prosecution is saying it's irrelevant?!

Why is that? Do they know something is wrong with it? Was it modified in some way and they don't want me to see it?

I saw the list of possible fatal errors on TicketCombat and there's error that I can see.

Or is not disclosing the front just the typical procedure?

Or you have the front already(your copy is the same as the court copy) so that is good enough and meets the disclosure requirements in R v Stinchcombe

If those issues you are worrying about they will also be present on your copy.

winston301 wrote: Wed May 29, 2019 8:33 pm

I saw the list of possible fatal errors on TicketCombat and there's error that I can see.

Sorry...

and there's no error that I can see.

Also, in an Ontario Court of Appeal decision, an officer can amend a ticket after service in some cases.

Even if there's a slight difference between the original and your copy it's likely immaterial.

Check out York v Wadood on Canlii.

Firstly, I'm sorry to spam the forum with 2 threads. My other thread was answered so I'm starting a new one.

Alleged: Doing 104 km/h in a 70 zone, reduced to 10 km/h over.

City: Hamilton

It's a handwritten ticket, not computer generated. I have seen the list of fatal ticket errors on TicketCombat and I did not see any such errors in my case.

Can the disclosure geniuses on here please analyze my info and suggest the next course of action?

Here is my disclosure information.

Manual: They gave me a bit of the Stalker DSR 2x manual. It took seconds to find the full manual online, and it is obvious they have even altered the photocopy to remove some data from the page.

Officer Notes:

Stalker Dual

Tested before & after

Vehicle Southbound on 'Road 1' approaching 'Road 2'.

I am Northbound on 'Road 1'.

Vehicle speed 104 km/h.

One person in vehicle

Year / Make / Model / Colour of my car

Permit OK

Insurance OK

Cloudy, -9C

Roads dry & clear

Light traffic

There is nothing else. They claimed that all the other stuff about training, calibration, serial number, and all of those details are irrelevant and/or not in their possession.

As an aside... I had only a photocopy of both sides of my ownership. The cop didn't complain about that.

I noticed:

- The written notes say "Stalker Dual" and the manual I received is for "Stalker DSR 2x". They're different...

- The colour of my car in the notes is wrong. It matches my ownership, but isn't actually the colour of my car. My ownership has always had the wrong colour for some reason...

Thank you for any feedback.

First point would be, if you decide to fight this 10 over ticket, at trial the prosecutor will have the ticket amended up to the original speed. Second point about the colour being wrong on you permit, that's actually an offence in itself. Get it changed. Three, A photocopy of both sides of a permit is perfectly legal. All that "other stuff" is pretty much irrelevant. If you want to ask the officer about it on the stand, you're free to do so.

Be very careful with manuals you find online as these could be the US version and not applicable for use in Ontario.

A 10 over ticket is a gift. I'd pay that and walk away, unless you want the court experience.

Decatur wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:58 pm

Be very careful with manuals you find online as these could be the US version and not applicable for use in Ontario.

A 10 over ticket is a gift. I'd pay that and walk away, unless you want the court experience.

Thanks for the info. At this point I'm not just going to pay it because the trial has a scheduling error. I don't want to get into how I found out about this, but I know with absolute certainty that the trial date is not the cop's court date. So it's a good guess the cop could be a no-show.

The trial is in late October so they do have some time to figure it out. Maybe they'll come up with a BS reason to adjourn it. Maybe not.

The financial difference between the original charge and reduced charge is not a big deal to me, and points go away in 2 years. I don't plan to get any more points. But I'd prefer not to have the thing on my record.

1. Is it better to 'lie low' so their attention won't be on this case, and the hope for a police no-show at the trial?

2. I'm not sophisticated enough to know everything about the court process. I have the money so does it even make sense to get a paralegal to try to get it dismissed before the trial? Or will this just draw more attention to the whole thing and then they might see the scheduling error?

duplicate post

A no show is a very rare thing now. Police officers get paid to be in court, either on a regular day shift or even on overtime on a day off. So bless you know that this officer has tickets for a flight that morning I would t be betting on a no show.

From what you've posted so far I don't see any grounds to have this dismissed outright.

Decatur wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:31 am

A no show is a very rare thing now. Police officers get paid to be in court, either on a regular day shift or even on overtime on a day off. So unless you know that this officer has tickets for a flight that morning I wouldn't be betting on a no show.

Haha... I have no idea if the officer has a flight .

I understand that the officer almost always attends, but isn't that because cases are normally scheduled for that particular officer's court date, and it's the officer's job to be there?

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I thought officers have scheduled shifts, places to patrol, specific activities to attend. Are you saying that it's pretty common for officers to get out of other scheduled activities and go to court on a day that's not their normal day?

Cops go to court on their days off all the time. If it happens they get a set minimum hours at overtime.

Cops get supeonaed just like every other witness. Even for their work days. If they ignore they could always issue a witness (not common for POA court) warrant.

But you miss court even on days off there is a Penalty.

Here 4 hrs first time, 8 the second and then a PSS chiefs complaint for each further case.

It's very common for officers to attend court on days off. I'll second what greasespot posted. Miss court and you're likely to get written up for a first offence. Charged under the PSA after that and loss of time certainly.

Decatur wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:31 pm

It's very common for officers to attend court on days off. I'll second what greasespot posted. Miss court and you're likely to get written up for a first offence. Charged under the PSA after that and loss of time certainly.

Thanks, this is helpful feedback.

I don't know if the officer is actually 'on duty' or has a 'day off' on the day of the trial. All I can say is that it's definitely not the officer's scheduled court day.

But it sounds like you two are saying the distinction of 'day off' or 'on duty, but not a court day' doesn't matter, the officer will probably show up anyway.