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!
I searched but could not retrieve a satisfactory answer.
It seems matter-of-fact that all sorts of work equipment, namely backhoes, loaders and other similar mororized vehicles without licence plates, sometimes equipped with a slow moving vehicle sign, often not, some with an amber beacon, some without, are encountered on a highway, travelling under their own power, sometimes on multi-lane roads…
Hello everyone I'm not sure if this is the right place to put it but I need some answers as I'm very scared and don't know what to do. Recently if got a Novice Driver B.A.C Above zero I am 23 years old and I'm pretty due to get my G class license in a couple of weeks. I understand that I was wrong for drinking a beer and half and driving with a G2 Class license.
I have been reading Fight Your Traffic Ticket site and have a couple of comments.
I was issued two tickets at the same time, one for invalid left turn (Hwy 7 in Markham and Swansea). Another one, because the officer did not like my copy of registration documents.
I am planning to challenge it in the court. Actually I already submitted the request.
Hi, I have a court date Oct. 21,08 for parking in the fire route of my friends building. How can i get this $100 fine reduced or eliminated? only argument i really have is that visitor parking was full and i went around a few times. I wasn't there for long either.
+
I just got a ticket for going right on red fail to stop(114[18])$180. No pedestrians were in the way. I'm not a unsafe driver, so I'm…
My mom received a ticket under OHTA 159(1). She was turning left at an intersection. The light was green and there were no cars in front of her. She entered the intersection and waited for incoming traffic to clear so that she could complete the turn. As she waited, a fire truck with its sirens on was driving from the street onto which she was turning (perpendicular). He honked at her (presumably…
Basically, I was selling the car and I informed the buyer that the car was in not insured at the time.
He bought dealer plates from his work place and assured me that it was fine. We got pulled over by OPP and they asked for our information.
I explained that it was my car and the test driver was working at a dealership with his plates that has insurance, they told us that the plates don't apply
The other day I was given a ticket for speeding 119 in a 90, on highway 17 near Marathon, ON (Speeding ticket capital of the universe, BTW). The officer claims to have "clocked" me using the vehicle mounted radar at 121 KMH and dropped it (presumably to lower fine and demerits).
I was not going that fast, but there was a larger, and faster moving, vehicle behind me, gaining fast (I was driving a…
Location: 401 exit to Homer Watson Blvd, Kitchener/ Cambridge.
I was going on 401. When I was approaching the location mentioned at the topic, I tried to over take a truck in front of me, and realized a car tailgating me right after I went out to the fast lane. At first I thought it was some other fast drivers so I just thought that I would go back into the middle…
Hey, i recently got a ticket for failing to stop a red light (Section 114(18)).
I was travelling south, the cop was travelling north. He was on the other side of the intersection then me, my light turned yellow and i tried running it but it turned red before i could cross the line. I was going too fast to be able to stomp the break so i had to run it through.
I'm just curious how long will a Driving while suspended affect my insurance rates? Initially when I got my conviction with DWS my rates went from 180 a month to 390, since then I've had no tickets or even been pulled over and my rates have gone down to 240 since then. I believe it will be 3 years in Sept 2017. Will the DWS affect my insurance for 6 years because thats how long it stays on my…
It's winter, and there's been a cold snap. The highway you are traveling on is wet, but not slippery. You take your exit, but the salt trucks haven't been on this ramp, and despite slowing down to below the recommended speed, your car slips on some black ice, and you find the car rotating clockwise. The car rotates 180 degrees, and slides backwards off the ramp…
So about a month ago I received a stunt/racing charge for going 140 in an 80 zone. I decided to go with a paralegal, and was notified by the paralegal that on the summon's it states to go to a criminal court. The paralegal was confused as this should be at a Provincial court. They said that since I do not have any criminal charges, that the officer wrote the wrong address down including…
I got a careless driving ticket and I was involved in quite a serious accident. I was driving at about 60 km/h arriving towards a stop sign. Unfortunately when I tried to stop, my shoes were sliding off from my foot as they did not have any strap and were perhaps oversized and slippery. I could not stop at the sign and hit a van that had the right of way. Both vehicles were badly damaged and…
In some cases, it takes too long for the Crown to bring a charge against a defendant to trial. If your charge has taken too long to come to trial, you can stop the proceedings by "filing an 11B." This is filing paperwork to bring a motion at your trial, where you essentially say, "my rights to a speedy trial have been violated, and I want the case stopped." It is called an 11B because section…
Hi I'm new to this forum but I hope I'm bringing you all good news.
I recently wrote a book short titled ABUSE OF POWER
This book is all about how the Ontario government broke the law to enact the new street racing legislation.
To start with the denial of the right to remain innocent until proven guilty was enacted without due process under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. How it wasn't done…
I have been caught 3 times driving while suspended for unpaid fines . I have still not paid the fines and did not go to the first 2 court dates. When I was pulled over the second time the police officer said he would put down as it was my first time . But I had to work as I just started a new job. I called in to have the date changed but they said it was to late . So I did not go to court .…
Today I received a hand held device ticket on Gardiner. I was pulled over by the police officer and told i was using my cell phone while driving but i never even touched my cell phone. He told me my hand was not on steering. I am sure i didn't touch the phone. The phone was on the right passenger seat connected to my car. I was using mobile gps which was on dashboard display and never touched…
As the title states, I received a ticket for failing to proceed at a green light. I have gained a lot of knowledge from this site for various things, however even a google search of this ticket doesn't seem to pull up much info. Someone else had made a post about this back in 2009 but my story is quite different.
So I shall explain...
On the night of February 23/2013 I had decided to be the…
Need some advice on reaching a plea deal with the prosecutor and how to go about talking to the crown. I'm not here to be lectured ect. I'm aware I made a mistake, and need advice on fixing it. So kindly keep comments about my impulsive decision to yourself.
Backstory:
I'm 19 with a g2 license. Was going home late at night and decided to go down a road that I knew was smooth with zero traffic so I…
I recently got pulled over and issued a ticket for following too closely and am looking to challenge the charges. However, I will be at school by the trial date. This is significant because I received the ticket in Ottawa (where my family lives), but attend school in Waterloo (almost 6 hours away). I will also be starting co-op this summer and as such likely won't be returning home in order to…
I was charged with careless driving for a one-vehicle accident, and would like to know how to go about pleading not guilty. I was driving on a rural road at night in an 80 kmh zone. I was driving up a hill. At the top of the hill is a 90 degree turn sign (no stop sign, no kmh posted). I hit the brakes too late, and because the road goes downhill and there's a lot of gravel, skidded one or two…
Not sure the right place for this so if it needs to be moved please do so.
I was stopped today for 15 over the speed limit, I gave all the documents to the officer and he said he could not accept a photocopy of my ownership only the original I had a photo copy front and back and I had my plate sticker number with it.
he gave me a ticket for HWY ACT Section 7(5)(a) he said only the original would…
Tonight, I was pulled over for apparently doing 132km in an 80km zone. Although I'd only caught myself doing 120km(yes, still over, I'm aware). After about 30 min of sitting on the side of the road, the officer came over and kindly decided not to take away my license or impound the car on the spot. I did not recieve any fines. He did, however, give me a court date in August. Never mentioning…
I have been a frequent visitor of this site for a while now but I just made an account today to ask a question that I have gotten no real clear cut answer on in the past.
What I'm talking about here is H.I.D. (High Intensity Discharge) Headlight Conversion Kits. For those of you who don't know what they are all about you can just google it and you will receive more than enough…
