So this is coming up next week and of course still no response from the prosecutor regarding the additional disclosure request. Since it would be a charter violation should I just ask for adjournment so that I can prepare a section 7 application? Do I have to notify the prosecutor beforehand that I will be making that motion?

Of course I have to assume the JP will ignore my arguments and allow the trial to continue. Here is the interaction between the police officer and the accused:

- few days later, officer comes to see me

- Officer asks if I hit the box

- I said yes

- Officer asks why I didn't report it

- I said I've never hit something before, was scared and was quite shaken up by the whole ordeal and didn't know what to do.

- We go sit in Officer's vehicle and Officer read my rights and then wrote up a ticket.

- I asked Officer if there was anyway I can get let off on a warning as I don't have any previous convictions

- Officer said no

- I take the ticket and said thank you

What is the best strategy of getting the defendant's statement omitted from the police officer's testimony? Do I object when the officer starts reading the defendant's statements? The reasoning seems a bit circular to me because she would only be required to give a statement if she was in a collision totaling more than $2000, which is the whole point of the trial.

Yes I would object anytime they try to say anything the defendant said. They would need to have a voire dire and determine if the statements made were voluntary in order to admit them (and this would require the defendant to be there).

Is there any proof of amount of damage?

The amount of damage to the vehicle was probably around $200. This was to the plastic bumper (a small dent) and I will personally be testifying to that as I had a larger rust hole in my own car's door fixed for close to that last year.

The only witness to the damage on the steel hydro box is the police officer and the estimate was $6000, but only because it was the hydro rep who called the police and said it would be completely replaced for that amount. Sounds like getting a fender bender and expecting the other party to buy you a new car.

So looking back thru the thread, the charge (you think) is

199. (1) Every person in charge of a motor vehicle or street car who is directly or indirectly involved in an accident shall, if the accident results in personal injuries or in damage to property apparently exceeding an amount prescribed by regulation, report the accident forthwith to the nearest police officer and furnish him or her with the information concerning the accident as may be required by the officer under subsection (3).

So the key word in this section is the word APPARENTLY.

In this case you would probably need your friend to actually take the stand and testify that they did not believe the total damage was more than the $2000 limit. From what you have said, your friend did not believe the amount was more than $2000, so you would ask them the following question when they are on the stand: "Did the damage to your vehicle and the box apparently seem to be $2000 or more?"

Note to anyone defending a friend or family member: bring a copy of the Law Society Act with you to trial!

The JP absolutely refused to talk to me because I do not hold a licence to practice law. I knew he was wrong but couldn't get the research done in time to argue.

Because of this we were forced to take a deal. Luckily the crown was having difficulty with their witnesses and in desperation offered an unrelated bylaw offence which will not affect the person's insurance. So I suppose it is a victory in that regard.

Representing self, family, friend or neighbor

LAW SOCIETY ACT

Not practicing law or providing legal services

1. (8) For the purposes of this Act, the following persons shall be deemed not to be practising law or providing legal services: 3. An individual who is acting on his or her own behalf, whether in relation to a document, a proceeding or otherwise.

LAW SOCIETY ACT

Interpretation

1. (1) In this Act, "person who is authorized to provide legal services in Ontario" means, (b) a person who is not a licensee but is permitted by the by-laws to provide legal services in Ontario;

Exception, non-licensee practising law or providing legal services

26.1 (5) A person who is not a licensee may practise law or provide legal services in Ontario if and to the extent permitted by the by-laws.

Same

26.1 (7) A person who is not a licensee may hold themself out as, or represent themself to be, a person who may provide legal services in Ontario, if,

(a) the by-laws permit the person to provide legal services in Ontario; and

(b) the person specifies, in the course of the holding out or representation, the restrictions, if any,

(i) on the areas of law in which the person is authorized to provide legal services, and

(ii) on the legal services that the person is authorized to provide.

LSUC BY-LAW 4 - PART V - PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES WITHOUT A LICENCE

Providing Class P1 legal services without a licence

30. The following may, without a licence, provide legal services in Ontario that a licensee who holds a Class P1 licence is authorized to provide:

Acting for friend or neighbor

30. 4. An individual,

i. whose profession or occupation is not and does not include the provision of legal services or the practice of law,

ii. who provides the legal services only for and on behalf of a friend or a neighbour,

iii. who provides the legal services in respect of not more than three matters per year, and

iv. who does not expect and does not receive any compensation, including a fee, gain or reward, direct or indirect, for the provision of the legal services.

Acting for family

30. 5. An individual,

i. whose profession or occupation is not and does not include the provision of legal services or the practice of law,

ii. who provides the legal services only for and on behalf of a related person, within the meaning of the Income Tax Act (Canada), and

iii. who does not expect and does not receive any compensation, including a fee, gain or reward, direct or indirect, for the provision of the legal services.

Unfortunately some JPs aren't as well versed in the law as one would hope. If you are satisfied with pleading to the Bylaw infraction then I wouldn't do anything, but for anyone else in this situation you could almost certainly appeal and at least win a new trial.

Sadly this is true. I was once acting as Crown in a Criminal Show Cause hearing regarding a sexual assault charge where the offender was accused of grabbing the breasts of the victim. The JP said "I don't understand this charge. If there is no penetration then how is it sexual assault" !!