Requesting disclosure in toronto

Hello, I recently got my first speeding ticket and is planning to fight it.

My question is that how do I properly request disclosure? I went to the magma site and it says to send a letter to the court/prosecution office. However while browsing this site I see that there's a form that you have to fill in at the court office while filing you ticket (option 3: intention to appear in court). Another post says that you can only do that when you receive your court notice.

Does anyone know which one is the case for Toronto? Thanks a lot!

The "Notice of Intention To Appear" is the form you complete to request a trial. Make sure you select "Yes" under "I intend to challenge the evidence".

In Toronto the amount of time from offence date to court date is down to 13 months. The first six will be used for "intake" where the Crown prepares your case for trial. When this is complete you will receive your "Notice of Trial" in the mail which gives you a court date, typically an additional eight months away.

Most people wait until receiving the notice of trial before requesting disclosure but you can request it before that.

You can download a sample disclosure request form here http://www.ticketcombat.com/step4/disclosurehow.php

You do not have to fill out, or send in a form to request discloure ... all you do is send a letter (using your own words) to the Prosecutors Office (be sure to metion the date, offense # and big bolded letters "REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE"). Make sure your address is on the letter but NOT your phone #. This is critical as you do not want anyone, especially the officer, calling you and intimitading you (some may actually do this)...

oh, and by the way, send in a couple of letters, and ask for different things (copy of the officer's notes, copy of the original ticket (both sides), etc ... doesn't really matter what you ask for since they never provide it anyway. They WILL get your letters but are too busy to do anything.

Oh, and using non-discoure as a defence, only post pones trial to another date. The advantge here, is you get a second chance for the officer not to show up. They do sometimes show up at the trial, so prepare a proper defense just in case.

I win most cases at the original trial when the officers don't show up. This is becoming more and more rare though, so keep reading and learning about the process. That site you refer to ( www.magma.ca/~fyst/) is a really good one.

Sorry COMBAT, I didn't mean to step on your reply... he can definetely use a form if he is more comfortable with that, but the Crown is wise to these templates and forms and know it's just a tactic that they can easily counter. Plus a letter looks more like it's coming from a lawyer or paralegal and they feel just a tiny bit intimidated by that.

No harm done Synergy. The form I suggested is an example for people who have never seen one before and don't know what to write. Typically all you get is a photocopy of the ticket in response to a general disclosure request. And that is never good enough.

It's important to stress that disclosure is really about knowing what the charge and evidence against you are so that you can prepare a proper defence.

Improper disclosure can lead to adjournment. But Toronto is perilously close to the upper limits of reasonable delay. Improper disclosure pushes the case over the edge and allows for a successful 11(b) application.

Finally, improper disclosure leaves the door open for many charges to be quashed for lack of evidence. A certified copy of the by-law must be presented in court. A failure to do this will kill many tickets.

I was pulled over on Bloor St. West near the entrance to Don Valley Parkway, which i believe is an unposted 50. Do the Crown need a by-law for that as well?

Also, I was under the impression that we should apply for a stay with non-disclosure, so instead we should ask for adjournment?

One last question, the officers told me that I was driving 69km/h and they lowered it to 55km/h. Is it possible for them to bring it back up during the trial or mention it to influence the Justice's decision? The magma site has an answer but I would like to get a second opinion

kend7510, your best defense is the officer not showing up, but don't count on it. And, since you were speeding, you will likely be found guilty. These tactics (asking for disclosure), in my opinion, are just ways to use the system to have your case dismissed. They often work, but you have ot educate yourself by reading more and more sites.

I don't know about applying for a stay for improper disclosure, but the idea, especially in Toronto, is that since your court date will likely be about 12 or 13 months away, you will be able to argue Charter 11b (your right to a speedy trial). Asking for, and not getting the disclosure is a great thing to happen. This will be your second defense tactic if the officer doesn't show up. You have to read up on this more. It's far too much for me to post in a forum.

It sounds like you were Eastbound on Bloor St. E and they got you over the bridge. They've been using lidar on that stretch for quite a while. If by some fluke it was radar then the suicide barrier (think big metal) and traffic going the opposite direction would be factors to consider in creating doubt.

50km/h is the default residential speed so no by-law required.

If your ticket is 55km/h in a 50km zone, this is a pretty small fine with no demerit points. This is as good as it gets for a speeding ticket.

I'm with synergy, I doubt the officer is going to show up just for a 5km/h speeding charge.

And yes it can be brought back up. There are two parts to speeding: (1) you are convicted of going faster than the limit and (2), how fast you were going determines the amount of the fine.

The reason I'm insisting on fighting this is that:

1) I currently have a clean driving record and if I get convicted my insurance will spike as I'm under 25

2) I honestly did not know what speed i was driving as I kept my eyes on the road not the speedometer. However it was 9am in the morning and i was in the middle of traffic with cars in front and behind me. The car in front changed lane(my lane goes onto DVP) and right after that cop pulled me over.

During the trial my defense (if cops show up, complete disclosure, JP didn't grant the 11b stay etc) will be against the radar unit, as it has no way of telling which target(car) it got the speed from and there were A LOT of cars near me and at the opposite direction. The bridge also have lots of metal parts. The trick is getting the cop to admit that under those circumstances the radar is very likely to make mistakes, as I expect that I probably will not get my hands on a copy of a manual..... Also, I am not sure where the cop with radar was stationed (plan to get that information through disclosure)

Any key points I'm missing?

Another question :p Thanks for all the kindly answers btw~

The FYST(magma) site advices that we change our court date when we are first assigned one to decrease the chance of the cops showing up. But doesn't that void our rights for a speedy trial? The site suggests that unless I've delayed it multiple times it's okay, but I find it hard to argue to the JP that I was denied a right for a speedy trial when I had delayed it once myself.

I know the intake is gonna be 6~8 months(my friend who went to the court office to file for his ticket last week says the clerk told him that when he'll receive his trial notice) and ticketcombat.com (great site btw ) says there'll be an additional 6~8 months for institutional delays. That brings the total to 12 months minimum. Is that enough to ask for a stay outright(i will be arguing with the unneccessary long intake length)? Or should i count on inproper disclosure and ask for adjournment?

Also if every ticket fighter is getting this kind of delay (in toronto) won't a lot of people be using the 11b argument and JP gets pissed off by this? I'm quite concerned that the argument will not fly in first trial and I get on JP's bad side (potential of bias during the trial)

kend7510 wrote:

will be against the radar unit, as it has no way of telling which target(car) it got the speed from and there were A LOT of cars near me and at the opposite direction. The bridge also have lots of metal parts.

- Majority of radar units have directional capabilities in stationary mode, thus eliminates opposite direction traffic all together

- stationary mode, bridges, signs do one thing...nothing

- radar would not make a mistake (careful how you interpret this)

You can FOI the radar manual but check this out first. It's an appeal filed with the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Two points to note with this appeal, first the IPC ordered Toronto police to release the radar manual and second, about two thirds down the page

the Police also state that the affected party [the manufacturer] has provided a copy of the Users Guide for public viewing at certain courts in Ontario.

In other words, you could get a peek at a similar manual through disclosure.

Now with regard to disclosure and stays. You request a detailed and complex disclosure and hope you don't get it. You also apply for an 11(b) stay which you don't have a lot of grounds to win because it's under 18 months.

When you go to court, you say, "I didn't get full disclosure." The justice will likely order disclosure which will mean an adjournment until you get the information. You then say, but wait, I've applied for an 11(b), it's taken so long, if I have to wait even longer for full disclosure, my wait for a trial will be over 18 months which produces a successful 11(b). Let's just order the stay today.

According to City of Toronto stats, an astounding 97% of people issued a ticket pay it. The provincial average is over 90%. That means most people are not fighting the ticket. I also know that most of the people going to court didn't ask for disclosure or a stay. They are hoping the cop won't show up or they want to tell their side of the story. They're going to be found guilty.

So you, representing less than 1% of people who got a ticket, are the odd person out. Most justices appreciate a chance to get into meatier constitutional arguments. Think about it, all they hear every day is "it's not my fault", or "I didn't notice the sign", or some other lame excuse. Don't be shy about demanding your constitutional rights. Even if you do loose, you have created a great basis for appeal.

If the Proesctuor and JP's are not lawyers, they can be intimidated (in a nice way), by bringing Charter arguments. If you dress the part (look like a lawyer), and bring a brief case (assuming you filed all the appications ahead of time), this may work to you advantage. You may at least look like you know the law.

On the other hand, no one, like a JP, wants to be shown-up, so he may dismiss the Charter argument and let the trial proceed (assumign for fear of the unknown). He may not have the experience or knowledge to understand the Charter. Although, I'm betting he does and like you say, not many people fight tickets, so guys like us, arguing Charter and disclosure, is probably giving them enough practice, or enough experience to counter us. I thing I may lose my Charter 11(b) case this week, but I'll let you all know.

Man, my typing sucks (on that last post). This is what you get Boys when I don't have my coffee first thing in the morning!

Speaking of coffee, my old boss used to drive while drinking coffee in one hand, smoking a cigarrette in the other, cell phone between his cheek and shoulder..... nice! Scarey as hell the day I dropped him off at the airrport (he drove), then I drove his car back ... only to get pulled over for the radar detector he had hidden under the seat.

hwybear wrote:

kend7510 wrote:

will be against the radar unit, as it has no way of telling which target(car) it got the speed from and there were A LOT of cars near me and at the opposite direction. The bridge also have lots of metal parts.

- Majority of radar units have directional capabilities in stationary mode, thus eliminates opposite direction traffic all together

- stationary mode, bridges, signs do one thing...nothing

- radar would not make a mistake (careful how you interpret this)

Oh man...my defense just fell apart

Does the manual actually say that radars are immune to interference from metal parts and the such while in stationary mode?

Also quick question, on the back of the ticket it says "you or your agent must appear in person" to file for attention to appear in court. I don't really get what "agent" means...does it mean that I can ask my family/friend to file the ticket for me? Or does it mean only my lawyer/councel can do that for me?

Thanks.

as hwybear says, - radar would not make a mistake (careful how you interpret this)... ..... I think what he saying (without saying it), is that radar would not make a mistake, but the officer could!!!!

Trying to trip up an officer on the stand using radar technology can be tricky. Unless you really know what you're talking about, you may have a tough time with that. Use discoure to at least find out the exact make and model of the radar gun, and find the manual online. Then really read it. I mean STUDY it. I don't think a JP knows much about it so if you scare him with technology questions, he may favor the officer. You really need to get the officer to admit he made an error using the equipment and I highly doubt he would make a mistake (they use it every day). Then again, maybe they are complacent with such, and make all kinds of mistakes TICKETCOMBAD coyuld porobably help more on this issue than me. A better defense, is to cast doubt. Using a radar mistake is one thing, but you would need to find at least one or two additional things to show the JP that there is significant doubt. One little thing will not be enough.

synergy wrote:

Trying to trip up an officer on the stand using radar technology can be tricky. .

I can count on one hand how many speeding trials I have not been successful in. Each time was one word left out of my testimony. I will not leave any of those words out again.

The more the officer uses the equipment the more proficient the officer will be and be able to explain the equipment. If the officer is further an instructor of the equipment to other officers, even more proficient. An officer assigned only to traffic duties is going to be more proficient and at the top of the game so to speak with the equipment.

synergy wrote:

Man, my typing sucks (on that last post). This is what you get Boys when I don't have my coffee first thing in the morning!

Once you do get your coffee inside your stomach feel free to fix up the spelling