My 21-year-old daughter was driving my son back to camp after a day off in July and received her first speeding ticket on Rama Road in Orillia. The ticket was for 65 in a 50 zone. The ticket claims it's a Community Safety Zone, but I've never seen the sign and will need to investigate. I'll be representing her, as I've successfully represented myself a handful of times in nearly 37 years of driving. I suspect my daughter may actually have been driving more quickly, as officers seldom issue tickets at only 15 km/h over the limit, even if it genuinely was a Community Safety Zone. The ticket does not show Code R, but I understand that's optional and does not affect the ticket. Is that correct? On the ticket, the officer misidentified the licence plate. My car has a current scheme four-letter-three-digit plate beginning with B. The officer only wrote the first three letters, giving a decades-old three-letter-three-digit plate beginning with B. That plate would likely have been issued in 1973 as part of the initial issue of "permanent" plates. It would have been white with a plain-text ONTARIO embossed at the top, a plain-text KEEP IT BEAUTIFUL embossed at the bottom, 73 embossed in the lower left corner, a sticker frame embossed in the lower right corner and a blue border embossed all around. My plate obviously looks nothing like that. My question is: Is this mistake alone enough to have the charge tossed out, or does it simply go to the officer's credibility? I received the Notice of Trial in the mail yesterday. The trial is set for September 19. That gives exactly five weeks from yesterday to plan a "full answer and defence." I, obviously, want to get my disclosure request in quickly. My guess is the Orillia POA office will not be able to fulfil my requests in only five weeks, but I know I need to show diligence. Here's what I'm planning to ask for: * officer's notes, including any references and all log entries that do not pertain to tickets written to other people (I'm looking for his LIDAR/RADAR testing entries, of course) * registration information for the plate noted on the ticket (I'm guessing that plate hasn't been used since the 70's as plates went with the car, not the individual, until personalized plates came out in the 80's) * make, model and serial number of the LIDAR/RADAR device * maintenance and calibration records of the LIDAR/RADAR device, if applicable * evidence of the officer's training and certification in the use of the LIDAR/RADAR device Is there anything else I should be requesting? My daughter attends school out of town and will not be able to be in court September 19. My hope is to meet with the prosecutor that morning (Orillia does not offer a first appearance option) and have the charge thrown out over the plate, if that's sufficient. Thanks in advance for your help.
As I wait for the inevitable back-and-forth over my additional disclosure request, I've been thinking about what I may be able to do, particularly with respect to point 5 and any other cross-examination I may need. Radar unit in good working order "Officer, are you the only member of your police service who uses this particular radar unit?" Chances are the answer will be no. "When one of your colleagues uses it, how do you know it has been returned in good working condition?" He will probably say it passes the test. The test only shows that internal circuitry and all LED elements work, and that the radar corresponds to simulated speeds. He may say officers have to report damage. "How do you know there is no undisclosed damage that would still allow the device to pass the test, but could affect proper operation?" I'm guessing he'll go on about reporting damage, having damage fixed, some kind of damage log, etc. Perhaps he'll say "the maintenance person tells us the device has been repaired" or "the device would not be returned to the rack if it were damaged." I could challenge him on whether someone could make a mistake or whether someone who had damaged the device might not report the damage for fear of reprisal. Perhaps he would say so-and-so told him the unit has been fixed or hasn't been damaged. Any such statement is, of course, hearsay and would be inadmissible. If he says there's a repair log or some kind of book/log that shows devices are in good working order, I would go after the fact that said book or log has not been disclosed and any testimony based on it should be inadmissible. Maintenance History "Officer, at what intervals must the device be maintained?" He may give a correct or incorrect answer (I assume the manual will tell me, so I can verify). If he's wrong, that would go to his training and certification (and, ultimately, credibility). If he gets that answer correct: "Officer, are you the person responsible for maintaining the device?" The answer will obviously be no. "Who does the maintenance?" I'm sure there's a maintenance person or team. "How do you know that required maintenance has been performed?" Again, there would probably be discussion about there being a maintenance log or report. If the maintenance person simply states that the device has been properly maintained, any such assertion by the officer is hearsay. If the officer says he checks the log, non-disclosure of the log works in my favour. I could, of course, also approach the idea that someone could have erred, could have inadvertently entered incorrect information, etc. Either way, getting him to talk could be helpful. Calibration History Same approach as with maintenance. How does the officer know the device has been properly calibrated? Where is the confirmation it left the factory properly calibrated? Where is the proof that calibration has been checked? Bring up my analogy of a sticker on the scale at the store or on the gas pump. Again, my thinking is unless the officer calibrates the device himself (and I HIGHLY doubt he does), any "proof" of calibration would be either hearsay or contained in some form of log that won't have been disclosed. I know it's not quite as easy as I'm suggesting it is here, but unless I'm unaware of some case law or the officer has a zinger or two hiding up his sleeve, I should be able to raise doubt as to the reliability of the radar evidence. Any thoughts?
As I wait for the inevitable back-and-forth over my additional disclosure request, I've been thinking about what I may be able to do, particularly with respect to point 5 and any other cross-examination I may need.
Radar unit in good working order
"Officer, are you the only member of your police service who uses this particular radar unit?" Chances are the answer will be no. "When one of your colleagues uses it, how do you know it has been returned in good working condition?" He will probably say it passes the test. The test only shows that internal circuitry and all LED elements work, and that the radar corresponds to simulated speeds. He may say officers have to report damage. "How do you know there is no undisclosed damage that would still allow the device to pass the test, but could affect proper operation?" I'm guessing he'll go on about reporting damage, having damage fixed, some kind of damage log, etc. Perhaps he'll say "the maintenance person tells us the device has been repaired" or "the device would not be returned to the rack if it were damaged." I could challenge him on whether someone could make a mistake or whether someone who had damaged the device might not report the damage for fear of reprisal. Perhaps he would say so-and-so told him the unit has been fixed or hasn't been damaged. Any such statement is, of course, hearsay and would be inadmissible. If he says there's a repair log or some kind of book/log that shows devices are in good working order, I would go after the fact that said book or log has not been disclosed and any testimony based on it should be inadmissible.
Maintenance History
"Officer, at what intervals must the device be maintained?" He may give a correct or incorrect answer (I assume the manual will tell me, so I can verify). If he's wrong, that would go to his training and certification (and, ultimately, credibility). If he gets that answer correct: "Officer, are you the person responsible for maintaining the device?" The answer will obviously be no. "Who does the maintenance?" I'm sure there's a maintenance person or team. "How do you know that required maintenance has been performed?" Again, there would probably be discussion about there being a maintenance log or report. If the maintenance person simply states that the device has been properly maintained, any such assertion by the officer is hearsay. If the officer says he checks the log, non-disclosure of the log works in my favour. I could, of course, also approach the idea that someone could have erred, could have inadvertently entered incorrect information, etc. Either way, getting him to talk could be helpful.
Calibration History
Same approach as with maintenance. How does the officer know the device has been properly calibrated? Where is the confirmation it left the factory properly calibrated? Where is the proof that calibration has been checked? Bring up my analogy of a sticker on the scale at the store or on the gas pump. Again, my thinking is unless the officer calibrates the device himself (and I HIGHLY doubt he does), any "proof" of calibration would be either hearsay or contained in some form of log that won't have been disclosed.
I know it's not quite as easy as I'm suggesting it is here, but unless I'm unaware of some case law or the officer has a zinger or two hiding up his sleeve, I should be able to raise doubt as to the reliability of the radar evidence.
It all depends on whether the justice will accept that the test is sufficient. If he does then you can go on until the cows come home and you'll still be found guilty. If he agrees with you then you get off..........but so does every other person charged with a speeding offence.
It all depends on whether the justice will accept that the test is sufficient. If he does then you can go on until the cows come home and you'll still be found guilty. If he agrees with you then you get off..........but so does every other person charged with a speeding offence.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
So if I use an analogy such as "I turn the key in my car and no warnings lights come on, so I assume it's running fine, but it turns out the tires are overinflated and are about to explode" to show that a simple test may not diagnose everything, or use, perhaps, a medical analogy (the doctor listens to my heart with a stethoscope but that can't diagnose tonsillitis), the JP may still have it in his or her head that a simple one-button test can trump all logic and won't care about my arguments or analogies? If a JP rules that way, especially if I show that the officer's satisfaction is the result of hearsay or non-disclosed information, would I likely win an appeal?
So if I use an analogy such as "I turn the key in my car and no warnings lights come on, so I assume it's running fine, but it turns out the tires are overinflated and are about to explode" to show that a simple test may not diagnose everything, or use, perhaps, a medical analogy (the doctor listens to my heart with a stethoscope but that can't diagnose tonsillitis), the JP may still have it in his or her head that a simple one-button test can trump all logic and won't care about my arguments or analogies?
If a JP rules that way, especially if I show that the officer's satisfaction is the result of hearsay or non-disclosed information, would I likely win an appeal?
Same answer, I'm afraid. Depends on if the judge agrees with you. The officer is basing his satisfaction on his training. It is up to you to demonstrate that the police universe's training is inadequate. It could get expensive because the crown will appeal a loss rather than have every speeding ticket in the province thrown out. Or they might decide you're more trouble than it's worth and just withdraw the charge. It's the jsherk defence and it's worked for him but I think you need a couple of charter arguments to boost your pain-in-the-backside factor.
Same answer, I'm afraid. Depends on if the judge agrees with you. The officer is basing his satisfaction on his training. It is up to you to demonstrate that the police universe's training is inadequate. It could get expensive because the crown will appeal a loss rather than have every speeding ticket in the province thrown out.
Or they might decide you're more trouble than it's worth and just withdraw the charge. It's the jsherk defence and it's worked for him but I think you need a couple of charter arguments to boost your pain-in-the-backside factor.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
I'm not against wearing people down or being a thorn in people's sides when either of those is necessary. Realistically, I would only roll the dice on a trial if I had reason to believe I'd win. The points on my daughter's record and the higher fine are not worth the risk unless it's really low. Given that I will likely wind up pleading guilty unless procedural matters really go my way, I do have a question about the fine. The ticket shows a fine, including costs and Victim Fine Surcharge, of $95.00. The Notice of Trial shows $52.50. Which would apply?
I'm not against wearing people down or being a thorn in people's sides when either of those is necessary.
Realistically, I would only roll the dice on a trial if I had reason to believe I'd win. The points on my daughter's record and the higher fine are not worth the risk unless it's really low.
Given that I will likely wind up pleading guilty unless procedural matters really go my way, I do have a question about the fine. The ticket shows a fine, including costs and Victim Fine Surcharge, of $95.00. The Notice of Trial shows $52.50. Which would apply?
I would absolutely use all your arguments and questions, but be prepared to lose as Justice of the Peace's tend to say: "if the officer says he is trained and that it passed the test then that is all that matters". However it will all have a better chance of working at an appeal with a real Judge, so this is all good ground work for the appeal. Remember you can NOT add anything new at an appeal... the Judge at an appeal is only allowed to look at what was said at the the original trial, so get everything in that you think is important at the original trial.
I would absolutely use all your arguments and questions, but be prepared to lose as Justice of the Peace's tend to say: "if the officer says he is trained and that it passed the test then that is all that matters".
However it will all have a better chance of working at an appeal with a real Judge, so this is all good ground work for the appeal. Remember you can NOT add anything new at an appeal... the Judge at an appeal is only allowed to look at what was said at the the original trial, so get everything in that you think is important at the original trial.
Real Judge...cute! I knew you'd show up sooner or later. My fear is exactly what you and argyll have said. The JP could ignore everything I bring up and I'd have to convince the "real judge" that the JP had erred in not considering the evidence, etc. The other fear is that the officer could actually prove what I would be getting at and would close any holes I may have managed to open. I'm not ready to give in just yet, though.
Real Judge...cute! I knew you'd show up sooner or later.
My fear is exactly what you and argyll have said. The JP could ignore everything I bring up and I'd have to convince the "real judge" that the JP had erred in not considering the evidence, etc. The other fear is that the officer could actually prove what I would be getting at and would close any holes I may have managed to open.
I'm surprised this hasn't came up yet. Maybe because of your daughters age, but its relevant. Does she hold a G2 or a G license? If she has a G2, and is convicted of 30+ over, her license will be suspended for 30 days due to the novice driver escallating sanctions. Just keep that in mind when going to trial.
I'm surprised this hasn't came up yet. Maybe because of your daughters age, but its relevant. Does she hold a G2 or a G license? If she has a G2, and is convicted of 30+ over, her license will be suspended for 30 days due to the novice driver escallating sanctions. Just keep that in mind when going to trial.
I thought you'd be interested in the e-mail I received today from the prosecutor. ---------------- Dear Mr. XXXXX, I am the now assigned Prosecutor for Provincial Offences court on Monday September 19th in Orillia. I have been on Holidays last week and in court all day for the last 2 business days hence my late reply to your disclosure request. I have read the request. My position is that you have been provided all of the necessary disclosure to answer to this charge. This offence is the most commonly laid charge in Ontario. It is not a complex matter. Your lengthy list of disclosure demands with respect are in my view are largely frivolous and vexatious and do not meet the relevance test. I have reviewed the evidence in this matter and the evidence indicates that the officer obtained a speed measurement up to 82 km/hr. in a 50 km/hr. zone. Please be advised that the prosecution will seek an amendment to have the certificate conform to the evidence in the event the matter goes to trial. Upon conviction that would result in a 4 demerit point conviction and the corresponding monetary fine of $224.00. This practice is allowed for in law due to a decision by the Provincial Offence appeal court in the matter of Rvs. Winlow[2009] O.J. No.3691. Additionally your other documentary requests which are outside of the norm should have been addressed by your bringing a proper motion in advance of the trial date according to the rules of practice, not on a trial date. The numerous items you request are as I indicated frivolous and perhaps I might suggest that you obtain a copy of the case of R vs.Reybroek [1998] O.J. 2586 and additionally vs. Sequin [2007] O.J. 382. Both of these cases are higher court decisions that bind a Justice of the Peace in Provincial Offences matters. Finally with respect to the matters you are requesting I also suggest you obtain a very recent yet important Case of R. vs. Jackson [2015] ONCA 832 ( Ontario Court of appeal) which expands greatly on the role of the prosecution and its obligations respecting disclosure. Should you desire to resolve this matter our office is content to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the charge as it is currently before the court. It at this point does not have any demerit point consequence. Please be advised that the foregoing is not legal advice merely the Prosecutions position should the matter proceed to trial and of course subject to Judicial scrutiny. I am available for reply up until end of business on Friday at 4:30 p.m. should you desire the opportunity. Respectfully, XXXXX XXXXXX Municipal Prosecutor City Of Barrie. ------------------------------ Frivolous and vexatious??? While I wouldn't win every argument, there's no question I'm entitled to at least some of what I disclosed. That said, the calendar does not work in our favour (finding someone to get to Orillia Monday, booking an appointment to view the radar manual in Barrie and making another trip to Orillia for trial or further disclosure arguments). I suggested my daughter change her plea and simply pay it. I would have loved to argue disclosure before the JP and to cross-examine the officer. I know there would have been a risk involved, but life without risk is boring. That brings this ordeal to an end. Thank you to all of you for your comments, suggestions and help along the way. PS I currently teach English. This guy would not have done well in my class.
I thought you'd be interested in the e-mail I received today from the prosecutor.
----------------
Dear Mr. XXXXX,
I am the now assigned Prosecutor for Provincial Offences court on Monday September 19th in Orillia.
I have been on Holidays last week and in court all day for the last 2 business days hence my late reply to your disclosure request.
I have read the request. My position is that you have been provided all of the necessary disclosure to answer to this charge. This offence is the most commonly laid charge in Ontario. It is not a complex matter. Your lengthy list of disclosure demands with respect are in my view are largely frivolous and vexatious and do not meet the relevance test.
I have reviewed the evidence in this matter and the evidence indicates that the officer obtained a speed measurement up to 82 km/hr. in a 50 km/hr. zone. Please be advised that the prosecution will seek an amendment to have the certificate conform to the evidence in the event the matter goes to trial. Upon conviction that would result in a 4 demerit point conviction and the corresponding monetary fine of $224.00.
This practice is allowed for in law due to a decision by the Provincial Offence appeal court in the matter of Rvs. Winlow[2009] O.J. No.3691.
Additionally your other documentary requests which are outside of the norm should have been addressed by your bringing a proper motion in advance of the trial date according to the rules of practice, not on a trial date. The numerous items you request are as I indicated frivolous and perhaps I might suggest that you obtain a copy of the case of R vs.Reybroek [1998] O.J. 2586 and additionally vs. Sequin [2007] O.J. 382. Both of these cases are higher court decisions that bind a Justice of the Peace in Provincial Offences matters.
Finally with respect to the matters you are requesting I also suggest you obtain a very recent yet important Case of R. vs. Jackson [2015] ONCA 832 ( Ontario Court of appeal) which expands greatly on the role of the prosecution and its obligations respecting disclosure.
Should you desire to resolve this matter our office is content to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the charge as it is currently before the court. It at this point does not have any demerit point consequence.
Please be advised that the foregoing is not legal advice merely the Prosecutions position should the matter proceed to trial and of course subject to Judicial scrutiny.
I am available for reply up until end of business on Friday at 4:30 p.m. should you desire the opportunity.
Respectfully,
XXXXX XXXXXX
Municipal Prosecutor
City Of Barrie.
------------------------------
Frivolous and vexatious??? While I wouldn't win every argument, there's no question I'm entitled to at least some of what I disclosed. That said, the calendar does not work in our favour (finding someone to get to Orillia Monday, booking an appointment to view the radar manual in Barrie and making another trip to Orillia for trial or further disclosure arguments). I suggested my daughter change her plea and simply pay it.
I would have loved to argue disclosure before the JP and to cross-examine the officer. I know there would have been a risk involved, but life without risk is boring.
That brings this ordeal to an end. Thank you to all of you for your comments, suggestions and help along the way.
PS I currently teach English. This guy would not have done well in my class.
The response above is totally expected and the norm in Ontario. I actually have a trial next Thursday in Orillia for a friend. I have not received anything with regards to disclosure yet. I am preparing a motion that I will submit later today to argue the relevancy of all the many items I have requested. But I will of course get the same response I am sure.
The response above is totally expected and the norm in Ontario.
I actually have a trial next Thursday in Orillia for a friend. I have not received anything with regards to disclosure yet. I am preparing a motion that I will submit later today to argue the relevancy of all the many items I have requested. But I will of course get the same response I am sure.
And as an FYI... Frivolous: Action brought without legal merit and/or meant to harass, delay or embarrass. Vexatious: Action brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance. My opinion is that if you can prove an item is likely relevant, then it is not frivolous or vexatious.
And as an FYI...
Frivolous: Action brought without legal merit and/or meant to harass, delay or embarrass.
Vexatious: Action brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance.
My opinion is that if you can prove an item is likely relevant, then it is not frivolous or vexatious.
The guy was obviously playing the "let's see how little we can get away with disclosing" game. He has to know he'd lose that game on most of the points. Maybe he thinks that because he's a paralegal (yes, I looked him up in the LSUC directory) and I'm not, I'd be intimidated by his e-mail. If I'd been able to go to Orillia next Monday, I'd at least have been able to argue disclosure before the JP and would, bare minimum, have earned an adjournment attributable to the Crown. I could have continued to plot my strategy from there. The argument over whether things like maintenance and calibration records must be disclosed will continue for some time, I imagine. I don't think the Jackson case will change that. It clearly cannot apply to EVERY disclosure argument. On the upside, our insurance company forgives the first speeding ticket if there are no points. For that alone, it's not worth fighting this thing anymore. The time and gas will cost more than the fine. Thanks for all your help and suggestions.
The guy was obviously playing the "let's see how little we can get away with disclosing" game. He has to know he'd lose that game on most of the points. Maybe he thinks that because he's a paralegal (yes, I looked him up in the LSUC directory) and I'm not, I'd be intimidated by his e-mail. If I'd been able to go to Orillia next Monday, I'd at least have been able to argue disclosure before the JP and would, bare minimum, have earned an adjournment attributable to the Crown. I could have continued to plot my strategy from there.
The argument over whether things like maintenance and calibration records must be disclosed will continue for some time, I imagine. I don't think the Jackson case will change that. It clearly cannot apply to EVERY disclosure argument.
On the upside, our insurance company forgives the first speeding ticket if there are no points. For that alone, it's not worth fighting this thing anymore. The time and gas will cost more than the fine.
Yes so the main argument that a prosecutor can bring is that the records are not in their possession and therefore do not fall under the Stinchcombe requirement to disclose. I am preparing for that outcome as well, although any help of suggetions would be great. My understanding is that after my motion to get disclsoure is dealt with, if there are any items that the prosecutor says they do not have to disclose because they are not in their possesion, I will then need to make a new motion to the JP to ask for a "subpoena duces tecum" for the OPP to request those records. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe a JP or Judge must order the subponena, and that I can not start the process myself, so the time to start it would be right after the motion to have the items disclosed by prosecutor is rejected.
Yes so the main argument that a prosecutor can bring is that the records are not in their possession and therefore do not fall under the Stinchcombe requirement to disclose.
I am preparing for that outcome as well, although any help of suggetions would be great.
My understanding is that after my motion to get disclsoure is dealt with, if there are any items that the prosecutor says they do not have to disclose because they are not in their possesion, I will then need to make a new motion to the JP to ask for a "subpoena duces tecum" for the OPP to request those records.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe a JP or Judge must order the subponena, and that I can not start the process myself, so the time to start it would be right after the motion to have the items disclosed by prosecutor is rejected.
Can anybody order a subponea? Can I just make one up and send it to OPP directly myself? This is something new for me, so I am making the assumption that it has to be ordered by JP or Judge.
Can anybody order a subponea? Can I just make one up and send it to OPP directly myself?
This is something new for me, so I am making the assumption that it has to be ordered by JP or Judge.
Have you read thru the whole R. vs. Jackson [2015] ONCA 832 case? It is actually a gold mine! The case law does set a new higher standard for "likely relevant" with regards to Third Party O'Connor request, but there is lots of good stuff in this case too. Basically it says that crown prosecutor is first party and police are third party. Therefore First Party Stinchombe disclsoure only applies to prosecutor, not police. However it says that things that are "obviously relevant" are considered first party even if in possession of police. [116] In first party/Stinchcombe disclosure, "relevant" is characteristic of the material to be provided to an accused as "fruits of the investigation". In addition, although it may not fall fairly within the ordinary sweep of "fruits of the investigation", material that is "obviously relevant" to the defence case may need to be rustled up by the police, provided to the Crown and disclosed to the defence. Like the discipline records in McNeil. See McNeil, at para. 59. [124] The McNeil court uses the term "obviously relevant" to describe information that would not fall within the compass of "fruits of the investigation", but would be of importance to the defence case. In McNeil, this information was police disciplinary records in the possession of a third party, the police department. Since it was "obviously relevant" to the credibility of the arresting officer and the reliability of his evidence, which was central to the prosecutions case, McNeil imposed an obligation on the police to obtain these records and provide them to the prosecuting Crown. It imposed a correlative duty on the Crown to disclose them to the defence as part of the Crowns Stinchcombe disclosure duty. So this means things like the entire radar manual should be considered obviously relevant and should fall into prsoecutor disclsoure. It also means that speedometer accuracy is also obviously relevant (if the speedometer was used to either pace or test against radar). And notice in p [133] that for intoxilyzers, they normally give logs, diagnostic tests AND calibration checks as first party stinchombe disclosure, so it would not be unreasonable to ask for these with respect to radar/laser as well.
Have you read thru the whole R. vs. Jackson [2015] ONCA 832 case?
It is actually a gold mine!
The case law does set a new higher standard for "likely relevant" with regards to Third Party O'Connor request, but there is lots of good stuff in this case too.
Basically it says that crown prosecutor is first party and police are third party. Therefore First Party Stinchombe disclsoure only applies to prosecutor, not police. However it says that things that are "obviously relevant" are considered first party even if in possession of police.
[116] In first party/Stinchcombe disclosure, "relevant" is characteristic of the material to be provided to an accused as "fruits of the investigation". In addition, although it may not fall fairly within the ordinary sweep of "fruits of the investigation", material that is "obviously relevant" to the defence case may need to be rustled up by the police, provided to the Crown and disclosed to the defence. Like the discipline records in McNeil. See McNeil, at para. 59.
[124] The McNeil court uses the term "obviously relevant" to describe information that would not fall within the compass of "fruits of the investigation", but would be of importance to the defence case. In McNeil, this information was police disciplinary records in the possession of a third party, the police department. Since it was "obviously relevant" to the credibility of the arresting officer and the reliability of his evidence, which was central to the prosecutions case, McNeil imposed an obligation on the police to obtain these records and provide them to the prosecuting Crown. It imposed a correlative duty on the Crown to disclose them to the defence as part of the Crowns Stinchcombe disclosure duty.
So this means things like the entire radar manual should be considered obviously relevant and should fall into prsoecutor disclsoure. It also means that speedometer accuracy is also obviously relevant (if the speedometer was used to either pace or test against radar).
And notice in p [133] that for intoxilyzers, they normally give logs, diagnostic tests AND calibration checks as first party stinchombe disclosure, so it would not be unreasonable to ask for these with respect to radar/laser as well.
You're making a leap. It's like the disciplinary records that you quote above; not all records are relevant, just certain ones. The same could be applied to radar records. This is no golden bullet.
jsherk wrote:
So this means things like the entire radar manual should be considered obviously relevant and should fall into prsoecutor disclsoure. It also means that speedometer accuracy is also obviously relevant (if the speedometer was used to either pace or test against radar).
And notice in p [133] that for intoxilyzers, they normally give logs, diagnostic tests AND calibration checks as first party stinchombe disclosure, so it would not be unreasonable to ask for these with respect to radar/laser as well.
You're making a leap. It's like the disciplinary records that you quote above; not all records are relevant, just certain ones. The same could be applied to radar records.
This is no golden bullet.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
I would think things such as speed measuring device maintenance and calibration records/logs would be considered "relevant" per Jackson. The manual likely specifies regular maintenance and recalibration/verification. The officer must, then, prove that these requirements were met. Unless the officer has done the maintenance and calibration/verification himself or herself, his or her testimony is hearsay without the records/logs.
I would think things such as speed measuring device maintenance and calibration records/logs would be considered "relevant" per Jackson. The manual likely specifies regular maintenance and recalibration/verification. The officer must, then, prove that these requirements were met. Unless the officer has done the maintenance and calibration/verification himself or herself, his or her testimony is hearsay without the records/logs.
Actually the manuals for Decatur Genesis radar conveniently says nothing about regular maintenance or recalibration. Manual says if you press the test button and if it says PASS then the unit is in perfect working order and nothing could be wrong with it!
Actually the manuals for Decatur Genesis radar conveniently says nothing about regular maintenance or recalibration. Manual says if you press the test button and if it says PASS then the unit is in perfect working order and nothing could be wrong with it!
The Laser Ally manual (US Version) says that the unit should be re-certified every year... the Canadian version of the same manual says "Annual Calibration is Optional". I guess they sold higher quality devices to Canada!
The Laser Ally manual (US Version) says that the unit should be re-certified every year... the Canadian version of the same manual says "Annual Calibration is Optional".
I guess they sold higher quality devices to Canada!
Of course it's optional. If it were mandatory, prosecutors would have to disclose calibration records. Imagine that...they'd actually have to do some work!
Of course it's optional. If it were mandatory, prosecutors would have to disclose calibration records. Imagine that...they'd actually have to do some work!
Hi so I have a bizzare situation. Today I received a summons for "being the owner of a motor vehicle bearing Vehicle Identification Number ###, failed to submit the vehicle, equipment or drawn vehicle for inspection or tests as required by an officer" for a vehicle I previously owned. Apparently a violation of HTA 82(9).
The date of offense is June 15, the summons was issued on October 26th and I…
Hi, I need some help for the ticket of lmproper left turn.
When i drove my car from east to west, intending to make a left turn and stop in front of stop line. There was a car in front of me, which has turn on yellow light. The light was turning red and then I thought I cannot leave in the intersection and turned, an incoming car was runing the light and hit me. No one got hurt but both cars had…
Have a ticket in which the radar used was a Genesis VP Directional. I had downloaded the manual for a Genesis VP but I now realize that the unit is not the same so it is the wrong manual. My trial is very soon so I do not have time to ask for disclosure of the manual.
Does anyone have access to an electronic version of the manual for Genesis VP Directional?
I was pulled over today in the city of Oakville for going 75 in a 40 zone. However, I am 100 percent certain that I was going only 50 in the 40 zone. When I was pulled over, I was driving my Dad's car which I felt was the reason I was getting stopped since two teenagers driving a 2013 S Class. He asked does I know why I am being pulled over and I…
I really need help on fighting my 9 tickets i received from one police officer. Here is some background of what happened!
I was caught speeding 66km on a 40km (school zone) on January 29, 2010. I was driving my friend's car and turns out she didnt renew the validation on the vehicle and didnt leave the up to date insurance paper on the car.
Hey question that I think here's probably the best place to get the answer:
I was charged with a careless driving offence in oct, trail in early april, so as of right now my insurance record is 100% clean... except the officer did file an accident report at the scene where I was classified at fault due to it being PI (although very minor). The person I hit did not sue etc, so the insurance company…
Very much unintentionally passed a stopped bus, with sign and flashing lights. Didn't realize I had done it until I was at the end of the bus. I'll save you my sob story, but it was truly accidental. I'm generally very cautious and have a perfect driving record. Never been stopped.
While I realize if a cop had seen me that I would have gotten a ticket, there were none in sight. Though I may very…
I was recently pulled over for running a red and I wasnt able to find my wallet in the car at the time to hand over my license. I had a passport in the vehicle that he used. The wallet was in the vehicle, it just fell through the seats. (Tough to find a black leather wallet in a black/black leather truck at night).
The officer still wrote the tickets for both he signed the one ticket (failure to…
I was passing a vehicle that was going slow for me and there was an oncoming vehicle coming at me. I speed up to get around the person I was passing and the oncoming vehicle turns out to be a cop who turns around and tickets me for going 110km in a 80km zone. How does it work with passing a vehicle? Once I passed the vehicle I went back down to my original speed of just under 100. The officer…
I picked up a brand new (old stock) Fuzzbuster a while ago at auction (wopping $5!!) and I want to mount it on the dash of my old GTO as a cool accessory when I show it at car shows. But I'm not sure if it's legal or not.
Here's my thoughts:
- It is early 70's technology (x-band) so it won't detect modern police radar. That's assuming no police force uses the old x-band frequency.
Hi guys, I'm still a little in shock of getting my first traffic ticket...
On Monday afternoon, I was returning from Toronto to Ottawa on HW416, I was driving about 15 over 100 like always. Then a car came very close to me on the left lane and made me nervous, I speed up unintentionally to pass the car and change lane, but while doing that a police car pull out of the median. He was hiding in…
May i ask this question regarding transport trucks limited to 105 km/h. Moving road blocks or safety?
IMO it isnt speed that kills. I find transport trucks infact help keep the road going. With cars that choose to not move to the right and slow down the middle lane the trucks would try to pass in their passing lane therefore the slower traffic would move right.
Received a notice from the police that a motion is being put forward to adjourn upcoming trial date. Notice indicates that an officer has sworn an affidavit that the crucial witness cannot attend date trial is set for (we know there is a social engagement at 7:30 pm for the witness, trial time is 1:30 pm). This further delay is a big problem to my daughter's case. She is moving away to…
This is what happened. I was travelling west on a four lane city street that was very light with traffic. I was making a left hand turn into a wide driveway of a business. There was traffic lights about 100 yards past the driveway and were red for the east-west traffic. I was in the left lane with my signal on and there was no oncoming traffic due to the red light. I was slowed right down…
I was driving my families older car and got pulled over, and the police officer informed me my plate was dirty. He issued me a ticket of $110 for the 13(2) act and obstruct plate as the offense. He informed me that such a plate could be used to avoid red lights as well as 407 tolls, also that buying a new plate can help to lower the ticket if I fight the charge, and that he also took a picture…
I received a red light camera ticket. In the picture, you see an ambulance in front of me with flashing lights. I had moved to alleviate the traffic behind me for the emergency vehicles coming behind it.
Is this a possible defense, if so, does anyone know any good case law to justify this position?
what happens if they charge someone for driving at 151Km/hr in montreal and they put for trial, appear after some months and sadly lost the trial ?
In montreal its $300 fine and 5demerit points ...
I heard Ontario and Qubec share the information. So once the trial is over ( and when the file moved to ontario) will his car gets towed and licence get suspended for 7days (later to 30 days ) ? and he…
I got a notice in the mail that trial is set four weeks from today, so it's time to request disclosure. I have zero chance of getting an 11b since trial is less than two months after the offense date and the officer did not reduce the charge. I really want to try and create delays on the trial, to reduce the chance of the officer showing up on multiple occasions. Is there any known loop-holes…
This weekend my father was involved in an accident with a transit bus in Burlington, ON. After the police showed up he was charged with "Fail to obey stop sign" Sec. 136(1)(a). At this particular intersection there NO stop signs but there are traffic lights. There is construction going on there so one of the light posts is smaller.
Driving conditions were terribly wet and visibility was low.…
So my boyfriend and I recently started dating. I have a vehicle that was insured. Insurance cost too much and I found it was just as easy to walk to work due to how close it was. But I didn't want to get rid of my car just yet, plus I'm still making payments on it as well. When we moved into our appartment together, I had it towed to my parking spot out back.
I was making a left hand legal turn on a green light, a driver came through the lane I was supposed to be going into ran the red and hit me head on as I was turning into my lane. When the officer came he was telling me that I was racing and driving recklessly because apparently there was reports of street racing in the area. I was not charged on the scene for this but I'm scared i am going to be…
I got a ticket for failure to surrender insurance because I did not have my new insurance stubs with me, just a bunch of expired ones. My policy number has not changed, so I asked the officer to just run the policy number so I could prove that I was in fact insured. He said they don't have that ability, handed me the ticket and reminded me that my car could have been impounded.
So I'm in a bit of a pickle and would appreciate if someone could clarify something for me.
I'm less than a month away (test on April 6th) from getting my full G license, and got a speeding ticket recently. The ticket was for 49km/h over the posted limit of 100km/h on the 403 in Oakville/Halton region, but was reduced from the initial ~60km/h over.
