My daughter was involved in a rear end collision and was subsequently charged with following too close. The person she hit lives approximately four hours away. We filed for a trial and it is scheduled for October. i requested for disclosure using both the prosecutors canned form as well as an attached letter copied from the Ticketcombat site.

I received the disclosure package and it has the notice of trial, copy of the ticket, accident report, officers notes and court disposition record. On the court dispostion record the only witness listed is the officer who attended the scene after the fact.

I don't understand how the prosecutor can proceed with the trial as their only witness is not exactly a witness to the events that transpired before the accident.

Should I ask the prosecutor if that is the only witness they plan on using or should I wait until the trial to question the validity of the disclosure package? Without the presence of the other party it would seem like a fairly easy trial for me - or is there something I do not understand or am missing?

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

GR

You may want to talk to a legal rep in the area. In the long run it may be cheaper.

Some other related questions - there have been several posts that state a person cannot follow a stopped vehicle. The only case law I see to support that is the decision in Regina v Robbins (1990) but that case is from B.C. It is, however, incorporated in R v. Haddad as a relevant statutory provision.

My questions are, is there any other case law that defines the act of following too close has to occur between two moving vehicles? Is the R v. Robbins applicable in Ontario as it is incorporated by reference in R v. Haddad?

Thanks in advance.

Glen.

I think what you are getting at is this charge only at issue when 2 vehicles are "travelling" on a road. Read the section your daughter was charged under, you can find it online. Does the incident sound like one of the descriptors listed? Then try looking for the two references in CANLII. Google it, comes right up.

To update this issue; went to court and met up with the prosecutor prior to the start of the a.m. session. Had a brief discussion on the issue of following a non-moving vehicle. It appeared that the prosecutor had already predetermined in their own mind that the charges were going to be withdrawn because of that issue, so it was a fairly quick talk and it was agreed to drop the charge.

GR

Hence, there should be a charge for "strike a vehicle from behind"