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, I am new to the forum. I have been trying to get information off of here and www.ticketcombat.com for my case.
I was given a ticket for going 122km/h in a posted 100km/h zone at Hwy 401 east at Thickson Rd in Whitby ON on April 10th, 2009.
I find this absolutely absurd, since I was in the left most lane of the 401 approximately(within 5km/h) following the speed of traffic in my lane. The guy in…
Hey this is my first ticket so as much information that people can provide will be appreciated. I was making the drive home going around 90kph(in a 80) behind what I knew was an undercover police car. The cop abruptly pulled to the side and pulled back in behind me to pull me over. Now I reduced my speed to below 80 when the cop pulled to the side but he claimed he had me clocked at 109kph and…
On Wednesday I attended court at 1530 Markham Road, courtroom E2, in order to fight my speeding ticket. My original plan was to plead not guilty, and to watch all the people who went before me, the process, the Prosecutor and the Justice Of The Peace so I could strategize and form the best plan for my defence at trial. I had done some research online and sort of knew I wanted to defend myself,…
About 5 months ago I was driving along a two-way road approaching an intersection. The road had a left/ straight turning lane and a right turning lane. There was an 18 wheel gravel truck occupying the left lane at a red light. I pulled behind the truck intending to drive straight. After not moving for about 1 second, I check my rear view mirror, signaled and changed lanes to the right…
I am currently working for an auto parts delivery company and they contracted me to work as a courier.
As I left my base to make my first delivery which was less than 300 meters away from the shop, I had my seat belt off because i was under the impression, according to Section 106 Exception #6 subsection (c) of the highway traffic act, that I would be exempted from the seat belt law. The rule…
Got a ticket yesterday for "Insecure Load" contrary to HTA Sec 111(2). $160. I was pulling a utility trailer in which I had loaded a steel and wood cabinet. Total length of cabinet is 57.5". 14.75" (1/4 of the cabinet) was sticking out over the side of the trailer at about a 45 degree angle, the rest (3/4) was inside the trailer. The trailer has sides 24" high. I didn't have a tie-down or bungee…
I've been researching for months for defence strategy and basic trial information regarding my speeding ticket. However, the information is so conflicting that I have no confidence whatsoever that I know what I'm doing.
I didn't get this info from a friend of a friend, it came from this website, court officials, case laws, and a consultation with a traffic ticket fighting company.
So I was driving east bound pulling an empty tandem trailer on a gravel highway. Eventually I caught up to a truck pulling a fifth wheel. The speed limit was 70km/h and I don't quite remember but I'm almost 100% that the guy in front of me was driving at 60km/h. After being behind him for a few kilometers and getting two cracks in my windshield from rocks off his tires, I decided to pass him. I…
I have been driving for over 10 years without any tickets and accidents what so ever. Unfortunately my luck ran out this past Friday; when the officer pulled me over doing 80 in a 50 zone in Mississauga, Ontario. Officer was very friendly and polite not to mention nice enough to reduce the charge to 15KM.
On the speeding ticket it now says doing 65km in a 50 zone. Never having a speeding…
hi everyone im just wondering if its right for a cop to have my car impounded and give me a traffic ticket for improper plates when my car didnt leave my property, yes i knew the plates werent to my car but on private property it dont matter aslong as it dosent go onto public property. am i right with this that i shouldnt have gotten the ticket or my car impounded?????????????
Have been busy and haven't had much time to follow up on this...
Went to court having not received disclosure (and was not organized enough to apply for a stay), so the trial was adjourned. They photocopied the officer's ticket and notes and provided a log sheet from the plane. I've sent another request for the rest of the disclosure items.
So here's my question -- can an officer amend the ticket…
Hi guys, I got pulled over last night and was ticketed with HTA 172, I was going 157 on a 100 on 400N and was wondering what I should do. I was using cruise control but the guy in the lane to my left was driving into my lane irresponsibly to I sped up to get ahead of him and just my luck that's when an OPP cruiser pulled up behind me flashing his lights. My court date is at the end of the month…
If anyone can answer this I would greatly appreciate it.
Friday morning I checked my mail and received a letter from the MTO stating that under section 47(1) of the HTA the Registrar of Motor Vehicles has decided to suspend my driving privilege for medical reasons. This was due to a report submitted by a physician in compliance with section 203 of the HTA. Enclosed with that letter were forms to…
Ok so looking for some advice in regards to my wife's speeding ticket 120k in 100 (I was in vehicle so witnessed most - but was resting at initial clock.)
whats the likelihood of positive outcome of an 11b (or an officer no show, which I suspect doesn't really happen as much as web/Ads would have you believe) of 8months.
Wife REALLY doesn't want to go, and of course I'm the one doing all of the…
I know I shouldn't have driving but I slept at my buddies' place and I thought I was ok to drive in the morning.. needless to say I still drove and got pulled over.
Background details:
I was pulled over in the morning last week, apparently going 120 km/hr on 90km Northbound DVP. Two cop cars tailed me for a bit, saw them in my rearview mirror while on the left lane, slowed down to…
I got two tickets on Feb 20 2011. One for red light, and the other for Stop sign. I knew I had a good chance at getting off on the red light, because the officer couldn't actually see the light facing me. He was at an opposite angle, further up the street.
I set a court date for both tickets. On April 22 I moved to a new place. I went to the Service Ontario location and renewed my licence…
Winnipeg's police officers have been told to issue more traffic tickets, in part to increase revenue.
And a union representing cops says the move could hurt their efforts to curb the city's gang violence.
Police Chief Keith McCaskill said last night he -- and he alone, without input from Mayor Sam Katz -- recently made the call to patrolling officers and to those in specialized units to step up…
I'm wondering if anyone could enlighten me on what to do about the following scenario:
I was pulled over by a YRP constable because I only had one front head light working. Upon being pulled over, I also realized my insurance card was expired by one month and my car permit was not on me at all. (It doesn't matter now but my valid insurance card was sitting at home in an envelope…
I have a wicked prosecutor in my area, he is an evil man and will lie and cheat, whatever is necessary for him to win. I got a yellow light infraction ticket and the cop was a no show. I requested the charge dismissed and it went like this:
Me: I request the charge be dismissed because the officer is not here
Prosecutor: No, we are going to adjourn the trial so the officer can attend
Accident happened at a regular intersection with turning lanes and lights. I was turning left. The light turned yellow, and the car approaching sped up to make the light. I thought he was stopping, so i made the turn. At the time of the collision the light was red.
I understand that it is my fault. I'm just wondering what my best course of action is.
alright well to get started ive developed a passion for longboarding
for those of you who dont already know a longboard is a big skateboard too heavy for tricks and stuff but boy can they ever go fast
my hobbies include going up the escarpment here in hamilton and stoney creek and riding down the roads leading to the lower part of the city. just wondering here. what would happen if i was going down…
My court date is nearing at old city hall at appeals court.
iwhats going to happen and what do i do?
do I present my certificate of offence and point out to the judge the fine was incorrect, I did not appear and am now appealing on the grounds the Justice of the peace erred and failed to quash the ticket on the basis of the certificate not being properly examined and is not complete and regular on…
.