Yesterday I was in traffic court to fight a "turn not in safety" ticket. To make a long story short, the case was put over until mid-December by the JP after he became frustrated that I required two hours to cross-examine the witnesses and present my defence. He said "20 minutes" was the usual standard for a trial on this charge and seemed shocked that I would need more.
I objected to the move, saying it would present an undue hardship and would veer into Charter grounds for unreasonable delay, but was cut off.
Any suggestions on how to deal with this?
Also, the investigating officer was seen with both crown witness coaching them on their testimony, then the two witnesses were overheard discussing their evidence. Is this not improper?
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.