Doesn't DISCLOSURE have to be provided WITHOUT asking for it

I remember being in court years ago and a guy representing the defendant pointed out to the JP that he didn't receive disclosure. He argued where does it state that the defendant NEEDS TO ASK FOR DISCLOSURE. The JP replied,

"...yes, I know the prosecutor needs to provide it to you and you don't have to ask for "

I was next and didn't know about disclosure, so I repeated the same thing, and the COP had to again go out to copy his notes. Cop wasn't too pleased needless to say.

So I guess for anyone that knows, can one simply not ask for DISCLOSURE and on trial date, claim DISCLOSURE was NOT supplied if prosecutor allows officer to read his notes?

This would delay the trial into 11(b) and not be the fault of your own, because you would need time to review the disclosure.

What the JP would have been referring to was on trial date. How ridiculous would it be if disclosure is sent to everyone that gets a ticket even if they don't ask for it. If you are at trial and haven't got it, im sure the prosecutor would just hand you a copy then you're stuck deciding what to do. You can ask for an adjournment, but its no guarantee. The prosecutor would just say that you knew about the trial date months in advance and never asked for it.

Depending on court houses, they have a disclosure pick up bin. It could be in there.

paul1913 wrote:

What the JP would have been referring to was on trial date. How ridiculous would it be if disclosure is sent to everyone that gets a ticket even if they don't ask for it. If you are at trial and haven't got it, im sure the prosecutor would just hand you a copy then you're stuck deciding what to do. You can ask for an adjournment, but its no guarantee. The prosecutor would just say that you knew about the trial date months in advance and never asked for it.

Depending on court houses, they have a disclosure pick up bin. It could be in there.

The thing was that, the defendant/representative never made a request for disclosure, they were not waiting after asking for it but expecting that what the prosecutor used should have been provided to them and it wasn't. Some discussion between the JP and the representative took place where the rep specifically asked where does it state that he needed to ask for disclosure. The JP agreed, that the defendant didn't need to ask for it but that it should have been provided. I don't believe the representative was an x-copper agency but rather a friend/family member.

Helped me out since I was next and not too familiar with disclosure.

I got my disclosure on my first court date. But in fact the crown never receive my fax request. So I think, now days, the crown do prepare the disclosure for every case

I am in Toronto old city hall court.

The Supreme Court case of Stinchcombe is where it says that the crown does not have a duty to disclose until the defence requests disclosure.

If you request disclosure on the trial date there would likely be an adjournment to allow for you to receive disclosure, but I don't think the JP would be happy that you waited until then.

Simon Borys wrote:

The Supreme Court case of Stinchcombe is where it says that the crown does not have a duty to disclose until the defence requests disclosure.

If you request disclosure on the trial date there would likely be an adjournment to allow for you to receive disclosure, but I don't think the JP would be happy that you waited until then.

In my case, the crown did bring the disclosure to the court even she did not receive my request. And after I shower her the fax receipt, she asked the JP for adjournment. And that day, I think she bring all the disclosure to the court.