I hope someone with experience and/or knowledge could clear this up for me .

I am defending a relative in a "failure to yield" charge. He was stopped at a stop sign, at the line, and another driver cut the corner from his right and plowed into him.The attending constable issued my relative a failure to yield ticket after taking statements and examining debris.

I arrived at the scene before the officer and took loads of pictures. I believe that we have a good defense. Heck, I even compiled a 20 page email for my relatives' insurance company and they declared him "not at fault". ( even in light 20(2) of REG 668 where I understand that the rule of law and not the insurance fault parameters apply).

My question is, how can I enter these photos as Exhibits I can refer to during cross of the constable. Will the prosecution or judge disallow their submission? Can I print maps off the city in question's web site showing aerial overviews in order to make points about the geometry of the vehicles' trajectory?

A quick perusal of the Canada Evidence Act left me scratching my head about the need to authenticate reproductions as evidence.

Any comment would be appreciated.

Well, when submitting evidence like photographs, since you are the person who took those photos, you are going to be present in the courtroom to authenticate them. I don't know the other rules of evidence such as providing them to the prosecution (or if that needs to be done prior to trial) as I am rusty on them, so I'll sit back now and wait until others respond. You are able to submit them, though. About the maps, I remember something about presenting it in court and asking for the prosecution to review (give a copy) and agree with you that the map is of the area in question. There are tons more info on evidence so please wait for others to chime in. I don't practice so I am going on memory from evidence class.

The photos will almost always been excluded.

The JP has no proof when or under what conditions the photos were taken.

Such for equipment violations (i.e. window tints), unless the photos are taken t or immediately after the traffic stop, anyone could zip over to the nearest tint shop get their tint substantially reduced then bring photos to court saying "Oh noooo your honour, as you can see I would NEVER tint my windows that dark!"

Near impossible to get photos into evidence...

See this link:

Follow those and there's a 90% chance the photos will be admitted. BUT - the time-date stamp has to be within a reasonable amount of time.

Excellent link RI.

Thanks

What if there is no date stamp on the photos? If the photos are intended only to show an intersection but taken a few months after the alleged offence and you and the officer are there to authenticate that it looked the same on the alleged offence date?

Likely shouldn't be objected to...unless there has been some material change...

It's stuff like window tints that can be reduced then photographed and claimed to be as they were.

I stopped a guy once whose Escalade's windows were so dark he coulda been welding in there...he show up in court with pics of the truck with NO window tint and said I fabricated it all...the JP was having nothing to do with it...

We have better things to do with our time and too many real offenders to waste my time and career reputation with the courts fabricating anything...Jeez-sus!