Hello, I recieved a speeding ticket 45 over (was not going that fast) with no reduction, I requested disclosure (certificate of conformance, Industry Canada, calibration), the prosecution believes it is not necessary for me to have. I argued in trial that I needed an adjournment because the disclosure they gave me was incomplete and needed more time to prepare for a proper defence and I gave tons of good arguments why the certificates are important. The JP gave an adjournment 4 months (the prosecution needed that much time) in order to do a proper motion to decide whether this is necessary to have or not. I have a few questions and concerns: 1. Why did they not decide whether the documents I requested was necessary during the first trial? (I made a motion before the arraignment.) 2. The JP said she disqualified herself, what does that mean exactly? 3. Should I get a lawyer, what should I do? Thank you.
Hello, I recieved a speeding ticket 45 over (was not going that fast) with no reduction, I requested disclosure (certificate of conformance, Industry Canada, calibration), the prosecution believes it is not necessary for me to have. I argued in trial that I needed an adjournment because the disclosure they gave me was incomplete and needed more time to prepare for a proper defence and I gave tons of good arguments why the certificates are important. The JP gave an adjournment 4 months (the prosecution needed that much time) in order to do a proper motion to decide whether this is necessary to have or not.
I have a few questions and concerns:
1. Why did they not decide whether the documents I requested was necessary during the first trial? (I made a motion before the arraignment.)
2. The JP said she disqualified herself, what does that mean exactly?
The Justice may have had a conflict of interest of some sort and couldn't continue. (She may know someone involved) You are responsible to prove that those items are necessary for your defence. You're not likely to get a certificate of conformance from the prosecutor or the police because they don't control those documents in the first place. And disclosure of a calibration certificate is very rare. You may want to seek some legal counsel (either a para-legal or lawyer)
The Justice may have had a conflict of interest of some sort and couldn't continue. (She may know someone involved) You are responsible to prove that those items are necessary for your defence. You're not likely to get a certificate of conformance from the prosecutor or the police because they don't control those documents in the first place. And disclosure of a calibration certificate is very rare. You may want to seek some legal counsel (either a para-legal or lawyer)
The topic of "supporting documents" for the accuracy of the radar (i.e. calibration certificates, conformance documents, etc) has been discussed on this forum before. The thing you have to remember is that the crown is not required to prove the charge with absolute certainty. In other words, they don't necessarily need to prove that the device that calibrated the device that calibrated the device that calibrated the device, etc, etc, that calibrated the radar was properly calibrated. That would be tantamount to requiring proof to absolute certainty. It's usually sufficient for the officer to say that they tested the device and it appeared to be working properly and they used it to confirm (and obtain the precise speed of) a vehicle which appeared to their eyes to be traveling above the posted speed limit. Obviously if you can raise specific issues that put the sufficiency of this evidence into question you can be acquitted. Similarly, if you can raise issues that put the accuracy of the device or its calibration into issue you may be entitled to get some of those documents you requested. The prosecutions constitutional obligation is to provide all documents that are "not clearly irrelevant" and obviously they take the position that they have done so and that the documents you are seeking ARE clearly irrelevant. Now you can dispute that by preparing the proper motion for disclosure.
The topic of "supporting documents" for the accuracy of the radar (i.e. calibration certificates, conformance documents, etc) has been discussed on this forum before. The thing you have to remember is that the crown is not required to prove the charge with absolute certainty. In other words, they don't necessarily need to prove that the device that calibrated the device that calibrated the device that calibrated the device, etc, etc, that calibrated the radar was properly calibrated. That would be tantamount to requiring proof to absolute certainty.
It's usually sufficient for the officer to say that they tested the device and it appeared to be working properly and they used it to confirm (and obtain the precise speed of) a vehicle which appeared to their eyes to be traveling above the posted speed limit.
Obviously if you can raise specific issues that put the sufficiency of this evidence into question you can be acquitted.
Similarly, if you can raise issues that put the accuracy of the device or its calibration into issue you may be entitled to get some of those documents you requested. The prosecutions constitutional obligation is to provide all documents that are "not clearly irrelevant" and obviously they take the position that they have done so and that the documents you are seeking ARE clearly irrelevant. Now you can dispute that by preparing the proper motion for disclosure.
Hey guys, thanks for the input. But what do you mean "conflict of interest" ? Why couldn't the JP decide right then whether those documents are necessary. I'm not asking for calibration for calibration for calibration device, etc, etc.. Just the calibration for radar, conformance, and IC certificate, which I heard are all very easy to obtain. And you are absolutely right Simon, what made me raise the issue to get these certificates is because I truely believe that I wasn't going that fast and also the fact that the police officer was not going as slow (10 under the speed limit) as stated in his notes (he was using a moving radar by the way), meaning my speed would be much greater than it actually was (closing speed - patrol speed = target speed). Now this could be due to a cosine error since my speed was measured both going on a downhill parabola in opposite directions. Now do I have to make the officer state somehow that he believed that he wasn't going 10 under the speed limit. Would I have to cross examine him? How would I dispute this? Thanks again.
Hey guys, thanks for the input. But what do you mean "conflict of interest" ? Why couldn't the JP decide right then whether those documents are necessary. I'm not asking for calibration for calibration for calibration device, etc, etc.. Just the calibration for radar, conformance, and IC certificate, which I heard are all very easy to obtain.
And you are absolutely right Simon, what made me raise the issue to get these certificates is because I truely believe that I wasn't going that fast and also the fact that the police officer was not going as slow (10 under the speed limit) as stated in his notes (he was using a moving radar by the way), meaning my speed would be much greater than it actually was (closing speed - patrol speed = target speed). Now this could be due to a cosine error since my speed was measured both going on a downhill parabola in opposite directions. Now do I have to make the officer state somehow that he believed that he wasn't going 10 under the speed limit. Would I have to cross examine him? How would I dispute this?
The Justice of the Peace disqualified herself for whatever reason in order for you to receive a fair trial. A common issue is they may know someone involved in your case outside of the courts, whether it be an officer or someone else. I'm just speculating. She didn't make a decision on the documents for that very reason. Once she heard the arguments and realized nothing could be settled between the parties, she removed herself and ordered a new date where a new judge could hear both sides and decide on whether the documents are a reasonable request or not.
vojkeBDP wrote:
Hey guys, thanks for the input. But what do you mean "conflict of interest" ? Why couldn't the JP decide right then whether those documents are necessary. I'm not asking for calibration for calibration for calibration device, etc, etc.. Just the calibration for radar, conformance, and IC certificate, which I heard are all very easy to obtain.
The Justice of the Peace disqualified herself for whatever reason in order for you to receive a fair trial. A common issue is they may know someone involved in your case outside of the courts, whether it be an officer or someone else. I'm just speculating.
She didn't make a decision on the documents for that very reason. Once she heard the arguments and realized nothing could be settled between the parties, she removed herself and ordered a new date where a new judge could hear both sides and decide on whether the documents are a reasonable request or not.
Hi everyone. I'm asking for a friend who has a question of interpretation.
He was ticketed for using a hand-held device. He contends that he was acting within the exemption provided under Subsection 14 (1) of O. Reg. 366/09, which reads as follows (emphasis added):
Hey guys i just wanted to know what speeds you see others do on the roads on a regular basis. As we all know no body drives 100 km. It seems they only hit that speed twice once on the way up and once on the way down.
it seems the De Facto limit on the 401 is about 120-130. But lately i dont know if…
On June 10, 2017, I was pulled over by an OPP on the 403 heading WB and told I registered 136km/hr. I kept chit chat to a minimum and took my ticket and went on with my day. I later requested my disclosure and did not receive it until a week before my Oct. 27 court date, and so I had my date…
Anyone know any more information? Apparently kathleen wynne mentioned trying to introduce legislation after more than 20 years of no speed cameras. My guess is that it wont happen, since they've tried before many times to bring it back after it was abolished.
The other day I was given a ticket for speeding 119 in a 90, on highway 17 near Marathon, ON (Speeding ticket capital of the universe, BTW). The officer claims to have "clocked" me using the vehicle mounted radar at 121 KMH and dropped it (presumably to lower fine and demerits).
I posted this in the 3 Demerit Section and haven't received any
responses.
I received a failure to stop at an amber light ticket on April 17, 2009. At my First Attendance Meeting I asked to read the police officer's notes and remember thinking how ridiculous they were and the difficulty…
I was on the right side of the road going straight when a pedestrian waved down the taxi driver in the lane next to me. He pulled over to the right without any notice or signalling and hit me with the side of his car.
There were many witnesses but I immediately had a concussion and did not think of…
My mother was driving EB on a 4 lane street (2 lanes EB, 2 lanes WB).
She was in the left hand lane and started a left hand turn so as to enter a side street, crossing WB traffic. There was NO intersection. She hit a cyclist who was heading WB. Police where called but none showed up. My…
If the speed limit is 50, and you do 100+, not only do you get 6 points. Your car gets impounded for a week, and your license suspended for 7 days, along with a hefty fine of at least $2000. The penalty is actually the same as for racing. The law came in effect on October 1, 2007. Remember -…
I was driving westbound on Hwy. 8 earlier this month in North Dumfries Township, approaching the Cambridge city limits. The weather was clear and the roads were dry. I noticed a vehicle on the shoulder on my side of the road, pointing towards me. This didn't concern me right away, as it is a rural…
