I'm posting this here since I could not find a better place relating to "validated permit HTA 7 (1) (a), if I'm posting to the wring area, I hope one of mods or admin can move it, my apologies in advance.
I picked up disclosure for this charge (my wife was charged while driving my car)
She was driving with a photocopy of my proof of ownership, but it was only the front and not the back. The license plate was validated by a sticker, so was the original ownership in my valet (I can hear you laughing )
The officer charged her stating "you do not have stickers on the back of the ownership"
As to my question:
The disclosure says absolutely nothing about the permit, it is dealing with a stop sign charge that she was charged with at the same time. What should I do? Go back and tell them asking for additional disclosure? Let it go and try arguing the office has no evidence? How do I know he won't simply say the license plate was not validated?
This is the same officer that falsely stated he has her on video failing to stop, so I already have trust issues with what he says.
I thought I heard somewhere that the sticker on the registration was a nice to have these days. Could be wrong but you might want to check.
The case law is R. v. Isik, 2014 ONCJ. It states you no longer need a sticker on the back of your ownership.http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... cj161.html
Regardless, I don't think there's any reasonable prospect of conviction if the officer has no notes regarding what he did or didn't see.
Edit: Was the disclosure handwritten or typed? Handwritten notes would likely be all together. If it's an e-ticket, the officer may have done separate notes for each ticket so you may again want to request disclosure for that specific ticket.
Just be aware that the case law cited is not binding on any other JP. I would agree with Stanton that unless there are more notes, there's no prospect off conviction for the offence.
If there are two seperate charges, then I would have made two seperate disclosure requests, one for each charge. Did you just make one disclosure request? If you only made one, then they could possibly have missed that it was for the two charges and only seen the one request.
jsherk wrote:If there are two seperate charges, then I would have made two seperate disclosure requests, one for each charge. Did you just make one disclosure request? If you only made one, then they could possibly have missed that it was for the two charges and only seen the one request.
I made two different and separate disclosure requests, but the prosecutor's office/officer combined the two.
When I picked up the package, it shows both offence numbers on the front page, copy of my request for each ticket is attached, there are several pages for each offence number included in the package with the offence number in the header section of each page.
It seems to me no one actually read what was the charge and what was being provided as evidence. It's so bizarre.
Okay so given that the disclosure does not appear to have any evidence of the one charge, makes it easy to beat. If the prosecutor offers to drop it if you plead guilty to the other one, then I would not accept that as there is no evidence anyways so they will have to drop it regardless.
In the disclosure, it says NCVP.
I suspect it stands for "not carrying vehicle permit".
She had a photocopy of the original on her, front of the permit/ownership only.
Can I assume a photocopy is a "true copy"?
So to confirm, the charge is HTA 7(1)(a) ?
7. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway unless,
(a) there exists a currently validated permit for the vehicle;
So the case law mentioned above by Stanton deals with an "unsigned and not validated ownership" and the ruling was that it was still considered validated even if the sticker was not on the back. If the officer testifies that your wife DID give ownership but it did NOT have sticker, then there is good chance of winning because of case law and pointing out the HTA and the Regulation.
The problem in your situation is that if NCVP means No Currently Validated Permit, then the officer is could say that your wife did NOT provide an ownership at all (meaning a photocopy is not the actual ownership). So the question is, can you convince the JP that a photocopy of the ownership is the same as having the original? I think this would be very hard to do.
Now on the flip side, is there anything in the notes about the fact that it was only a photocopy? If the officer testifies that it was a photocopy, but it is not in their notes, then you have to use your awesome cross-examination skills to bring reasonable doubt to the fact that it was a photocopy.
I see what you mean jsherk.
There is absolutely nothing regarding the ownership in the disclosure.
I am going to fax a request asking for a copy of his hand written notes today. The only thing I could remotely find that could resemble or come close to "permit" was the NCVP.
As far as officer's testimony, I think if driver does not have a permit on him/her, that would be HTA 7 (5) (a) so the ticket issued would be wrong.
Now, can the prosecutor change the charge at trial? I know there is the provision for amending the charge, but there must be some limitation as to what can or can not be done.
As for a "true copy" I wonder what you need in order to satisfy HTA 7 (5) (a), if a photocopy is not good enough, then what is?
I would guess NCVP is simply short form for the offence, "no currently validated permit". I would still argue there's no reasonable prospect of conviction without further details in the officer's notes. The notes should be covering off at least why the permit wasn't sufficient or when it expired, etc. And a true copy means the front and back of the ownership, so that the entire document is visible.
Section (7)(1)(a) says the vehicle has to have a valid permit - which it did. Section 7(5) on the other hand says it has to be carried. The charge section is wrong.
- Similar Topics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests