I'm wondering what the proper method of requesting disclosure is when you haven't been given a ticket, but rather a summons - under part III. And there is no offence number on the summons. On that note as well, the summons was served on May 8 and the first trial date is scheduled for June 11. That's not enough time to get disclosure.
Is the first appearance just to set a trial date or can you request to actually run the trial?
I'm also wondering if a wrongfully served summons is grounds for dismissal - i.e. it wasn't personally served but served at the address, but to the defendant's mom, and it was very possible to serve it on the defendant personally.
As well, does anyone have any experience with s. 27 of the HTA - i.e. improperly using a disabled permit. Is this a strict-liability offence?
Any help would be greatly appreciated. I'm trying to help out my sister. Silly family ties.
First you can request discloousre at any point, and the earlier the better. Although it won't be ready in time you can still request it now. The court date will be to set a trial date.
The summons was correctly served. S. 26(2) of the Provincial Offences Act states:
I suggest you read HTA section 27 carefully and Regulation 581. Did her actions constitute an offence?Service
(2) A summons shall be served by a provincial offences officer by delivering it personally to the person to whom it is directed or if that person cannot conveniently be found, by leaving it for the person at the persons last known or usual place of abode with an inmate thereof who appears to be at least sixteen years of age.
You should also check out R. v. Sholtens, 2008 ONCJ 282 (CanLII) which covers some issues around s.27.
Finally, on my site (sorry I can't link to my own site) there is the bilingual argument (Step 5 --> Bilingual argument). I mention this as the disabled parking spot should be appropriately signed in both English and French in Toronto.
Fight Your Ticket!
I've requested disclosure and i doubt they'll have anything by the time of the first court date.
My point about the service is that it was quite "convenient" to personally serve the defendant, they just chose not to do it and did the next best thing. It's a small point, but nonetheless.
I think the regulations may be the key. Since the issue in this case is not parking in a handicapp space, but rather just displaying the permit. I've read the regulations and i don't think it was displayed contrary to the regulations. Well, at least I'll argue that anyways.
thankfully, it's different than R v Sholtens.
- Similar Topics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests