Here is a summary of my story Dec. 29, 2012 - was charged 23 over on a 50km/h zone. Requested trial. Received Notice of Trial 6 months later Trial Date: 10 months later. Requested disclosure 2 months in advance. - officers notes, font and back, and typed - make model and serial number and manual of the radar - Repair history - Officer training record. - any other documents, crown may rely on at trial. As suggested here and ticketcombat, did not put down my telephone. On the trial date, received the disclosure, just the officers notes and nothing else. Prosecutor argued that nothing else was relevant and officer's training record will be presented at the trial. Prosecutor argued that I did not put my number so they could not call me. JP suggested that I talk to the officer to understand the notes and go to the office to look up on the manual. Case adjourned and got a new date 2 months later which is now 12.5 months from the date of offence. 4 weeks before the 2nd trial date, sent another disclosure requesting for remaining information and additionally, - typed notes - sitting to review the manual - repair history - calibration logs - official procedure for equipment testing and operator training standards - any non-disclosed docs.. If not, reason why it cannot be disclosed. A week later, filed for 11(b) - Huge thanks to diehard for putting together easy-to-follow procedure. Trial date: Jan 14, 2015. Prosecutor was going over my application in front of JP step by step. Said I requested disclosure once before, it was provided and another disclosure 4 weeks ago and the disclosure is ready (hands over to me). JP asked why was not provided earlier. He said that not enough time and no contact number provided. JP told me to include the phone number next time to speed up the process. I said that want to move with the 11(b). JP said that if the 11(b) is denied, then I would have to proceed with the trial and since I just received the disclosure, he gave me new date. The disclosure contains the officer's notes (again) and tests section of the manual (which they did not provide the first time). According to the prosecutor, calibration logs & repair history are not available and training record will be provide at trial. Once again JP suggested that I go through the notes with the officer outside the court. New court date is Feb 19 (3rd trial). (almost 14 months from date of offence). I ended up saying that I''m not waiving my right for 11(b) and the delay will be on the Crown. JP said that the next judge will make a decision on that. 1) File for 11(b) again? Do I still qualify? 2) Request another disclosure for testing procedure and training standards? - This time put my phone number??? HELP!

Topic

Speeding charge - Do I qualify for 11(b) - Need advice

by: lesami on

15 Replies

iFly55
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:08 pm

Posting Awards

Re: Speeding charge - Do I qualify for 11(b) - Need advice

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com ... tml#p30553 Isn't that burden of proof backwards? My understanding (admittedly limited) of Ontario law is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt - shouldn't this mean that the burden to prove or disprove something is never on the accused, and that the accused needs only cast reasonable doubt? Is the burden or responsibility of proof different under the HTA? By your own words, you're saying the crown needs to prove speeding beyond a reasonable doubt and not without a shadow of a doubt (any doubt). Doing a quick Google Search I have found calibration certificates that were issued by a laser manufacturer. http://www.safetycamera.org/Content/fil ... _12_13.pdf http://www.safetycamera.org/Content/fil ... _09_12.pdf If you look at the manufacturer's calibration test, it's exactly the same as the one the officer performs before and after his shift. So if the device passes the officer's daily test, then it would be in agreement with the calibration certificate. I've stated earlier in this thread, that these calibration certificates are not necessarily in the possession of the either the prosecutor nor the individual officer. It's something that has to be requested through a Freedom of Information Request, and even then the defendant will most likely have to appeal. I've yet to read a decision where a calibration certificate has been disclosed. Toronto Police Services Board (Re), 2004 CanLII 56313 (ON IPC): http://canlii.ca/t/1r1fc Toronto Police Services Board (Re), 2006 CanLII 50669 (ON IPC): http://canlii.ca/t/1qvqx Peel Regional Police Services Board (Re), 2008 CanLII 1829 (ON IPC): http://canlii.ca/t/1vhk5

holiday_mazda wrote:

is it still required under case law that there is documentation that the unit was tested after being pulled over? you'd think the officer would just say he did test the unit afterwards and that would be the end of it then, even though the notes did not mention any testing afterwards?

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com ... tml#p30553

orcrowing wrote:

trenchknife wrote:

He does not need to provide the calibration certificate. He tested it, in his opinion, it was operating properly. That's all he needs to prove. If you wish to prove it was NOT operating properly, it is up to YOU to prove that.

Isn't that burden of proof backwards? My understanding (admittedly limited) of Ontario law is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt - shouldn't this mean that the burden to prove or disprove something is never on the accused, and that the accused needs only cast reasonable doubt? Is the burden or responsibility of proof different under the HTA?

By your own words, you're saying the crown needs to prove speeding beyond a reasonable doubt and not without a shadow of a doubt (any doubt).

Doing a quick Google Search I have found calibration certificates that were issued by a laser manufacturer.

http://www.safetycamera.org/Content/fil ... _12_13.pdf

http://www.safetycamera.org/Content/fil ... _09_12.pdf

If you look at the manufacturer's calibration test, it's exactly the same as the one the officer performs before and after his shift. So if the device passes the officer's daily test, then it would be in agreement with the calibration certificate.

I've stated earlier in this thread, that these calibration certificates are not necessarily in the possession of the either the prosecutor nor the individual officer. It's something that has to be requested through a Freedom of Information Request, and even then the defendant will most likely have to appeal. I've yet to read a decision where a calibration certificate has been disclosed.

Toronto Police Services Board (Re), 2004 CanLII 56313 (ON IPC): http://canlii.ca/t/1r1fc

Toronto Police Services Board (Re), 2006 CanLII 50669 (ON IPC): http://canlii.ca/t/1qvqx

Peel Regional Police Services Board (Re), 2008 CanLII 1829 (ON IPC): http://canlii.ca/t/1vhk5

Similar Topics