Anyone knows anything about subpoenas?

Hi guys,

I have a court date coming up where I need to subpoena one of the officers that was present when I got my ticket. The issuing officer didn't include the fact that the second one was present at the time in his report (disclosure) but did give me the second officers name and badge number after the judge told him to do it.

What I'm looking for help with is the process of me getting to subpoena this officer to court. I've tried researching this but all I get is processing companies advertising their services.

Please help me if you have dealt with this kind of thing before. To begin with I think this guy should have been a prosecutors witness rather than mine since he was very much involved in the action that day so I'm really at a loss here.

Thanks guys.

I'm not that familiar with this area of compelling witnesses to attend court (my experience is fewer witnesses, better outcomes!). But here's a brief primer.

* A subpoena is a document that requires a person to go to court as a witness in order to give testimony.

* A summons is a document issued by a court, agency, board or commission, or another person, requiring a person to attend and to produce documents or other things.

Under the POA

39. (1) Where a justice is satisfied that a person is able to give material evidence in a proceeding under this Act, the justice may issue a summons requiring the person to attend to give evidence and bring with him or her any writings or things referred to in the summons.

The Justice issues a "Form 109" which can be found here(scroll way down).

So do you really want a subpoena or maybe you just want a summons? OR maybe you just want the other officer's notes which you can get through disclosure.

Without knowing any details of your situation, generally getting another officer to testify will not produce conflicting testimony with his partner. And if this officer should have been a witness for the prosecution as you say, then do you really want to compel him to show up at your trial???

Combat, Tanks!

I do want him there because the issuing officer (#1) never said that he had a partner (#2) with him in his disclosure and also exaggerated some things in his notes. Even if they do provide the same testimony (what is written in the notes), #1 already admitted that I was interacting with #2 at the scene so I want them to provide something new which hopefully can get me closer to the truth with these two because like I said, most of what is in the notes is exaggerated.

What do you think the best way to go about this is? Summons or subpoena?

Thanks a lot for your help and I hope this helps others if anyone finds themselves in my situation.

Best

I'm still not clear on your strategy. I suggest you start with requesting the second officer's notes (through disclosure).

Sorry for not clarifying.

The second officer has no notes and (I think) wasn't even supposed to be there. The first one wrote it all out as though he was there alone and mentioned my conversations with #2 as though they happened with him. When I went for my first trial and after deciding on a new date told the judge that there was a second officer there and that I would like him to be present, #1 started stuttering but eventually the judge got him to admit that a second officer was there and said that I have the right to have him present so that I can ask any questions that I may have.

So my strategy is this, since they are clearly meddling with truth, I'd like to have #2 present so that I can ask him questions such as "Why have you no notes?", "If you were involved, shouldn't you remember", "Oh, you remember? Without any notes?"....... and other questions actually related to my ticket.

But the bottom line is that I need him there and right now I am at a complete loss of how to make that happen.

Cheers and thanks again.

As I stated earlier, I'm not familiar with this area, but here's what I put together.

There are two types of summons, one for civil procedures and one for provincial offences (there's also criminal but we'll ignore it for now). Don't confuse the different rules. In civil procedures (I'm suing you) you can find info here, see section 3(e). I point this out because you should know what not to do. When you go to the court house, the clerk may try and make you do this. This is wrong and you need to know the difference.

As I posted above, for your trial, under s.39 the justice can issue a summons. I'm not sure why that was not indicated to the Crown at your first trial. If you don't know the name of the officer, send a letter to the Crown asking for the contact info (name, badge number, place of work, etc.) of their witness as identified at trial. You can also ask them whether they are compelling the witness to attend the next trial. If so, you're done.

If not, then you would have to see a justice "on call" at the court house and get them to agree to signing the Form 109 which you will have completed in triplicate (one copy for you, one to be served on the cop, and one for the Crown). If the justice signs it, then you serve the cop at his work. I believe it has to be done in person, not by mail and not by leaving it for him.

I don't know the time lines but it should be done at least several weeks in advance of the trial.

As you go through the process, you may be told clarifications/process modifications by the justice. Be prepared for that. Also be skeptical of what the court clerk tells you, they are often wrong.

You're the man! Thanks you.

I'll share my results when I get some developments.