man o man... what a day, showed up at 0830 and left at 1130 i had to argue my 11B tooth-and-nail and ultimately the judge's decision was in my favour and both charges were stayed the prosecutor straight up told me that i was playing a "game" during the recess and even during the pre-trial said that people just couldn't give the crown 8 weeks + 1 day for their request my disclosure request was quite simple in that it just requested for a copy of the officer notes and didn't require a manual or witness statements ... the prosecution went on to argue why i didn't go to trial right away if the disclosure was so "simple" on Aug 2011; the judge actually made me answer that question... in which i responded that getting the disclosure on the day of, was not enough time to mount a defence so who's feet did the Aug 2011 adjournment belong to was also argued, the crown said that i failed to show due diligence in submitting my first disclosure request in a timely manner, why i didn't request for disclosure as soon as i received my notice of trial in Mar 2011; crown cited R v. Dixon paragraph 55 which states that defence counsel has to show due diligence in pursuit of known disclosure, and during r v. dixon they made a strategic decision not to pursue disclosure knowing full well about it before and so the prosecution was trying to show that i made a strategic decision to pursue disclosure just a few days before their deadline in the hopes that i wouldn't receive disclosure in time ... seek adjournment ... and ultimately run the 11B clock in my favour, and this type of procedure was frowned upon by the courts the judge decided that i could not be prejudiced in that regard, and that he felt i did not have any ill-intentions in my submission for disclosure; the guidelines for requesting disclosure he ruled, were set out by the prosecution as 8-weeks, and they should uphold to that as for due diligence: i kept preaching that i re-requested for disclosure again in Aug 2011, but that fell to deaf ears because I guess the crown wanted you to show .. that you tried to request for disclosure as early as possible ... and continue to seek it, if you haven't received it yet i expressed prejudice against me from work-related, that i had to request so many days off that my employer felt why am i requesting for days off for a traffic violation that begun in Oct 2010 ... the crown immediately wanted me to swear under oath, but the judged asked me if I wanted to swear under oath or if it was just implied, in which i replied yes "implied"... and that i didn't have a specific instance of prejudice and that the time itself it took had been stress and anxiety-provoking a lot of time was spent on time calculations for the delay during my Aug 2011 trial, the judge spoke quite quickly and "inexperienced-me" just responded okay, now the judge asked me whether my intentions to go to trial were made at the first attendance meeting in Dec 2010, i said "yes". and i later provided the transcript to the crown & courts which stated my answer, so the crown tried to argue that the clock starts after the first attendance meeting + "intake period" and their goal was to get the Aug 2011 adjournment on me so the delay starts from the first attendance + intake to the Aug 2011 trial but i argued that the reason i had the first attendance meeting was to expedite the process instead of bringing it to trial and before the courts, the judge ended up saying that the day i filed the tickets at 137 Edward was when the clock should start, and that is the date i intended to fight the tickets in court and that the First Attendance meeting is merely a part of the trial process i argued from the beginning that 14 months had elapsed, but when the judge stayed the charges he didn't state how long the delay was, but i guess it's going to be from Nov 01, 2010 (filed the tickets) to Dec 19, 2011 (trial) so 13 months and 19 days. i satisfied the judge with my 11B motion from the beginning after the arraignment, but it was the crown that prolonged the process by throwing accusations making me look like some super-lawyer playing the system i honestly didn't expect such resistance from the crown, when i checked-in the crown told me i'd have argue my case and that if i lost the motion the plea-deal wouldn't be on the table ... i agreed and walked in he pointed me out at recess and told me i'm playing this game , and that i'm going to loose and to take the plea-deal, he also asked me how i knew about the 6-8 weeks? as if it's some trade-secret the judge also asked me pre-trial if i knew court procedure and i replied no ... that Aug 2011 was just an adjournment so the judge took some time to explain to me how a trial would look like and then told me if i had any questions i could ask him/courts... now i didn't make my intentions to stay the charges until after the arraignment was made, but because i was facing two charges the clerk interrupted me clerk ... charge 144 (9) how would you like to plead? me: prior to submitting a plea, i would like to stay these proceedings clerk: "raises left hand" for me to stop talking clerk ... charge fail to surrender insurance card... how would you like to plead? me: prior to submitting... at this point the judge is all like okay, did you serve all the parties? i said yes, and the fax receipts and affidavit of service, but the judge didn't want to see them and right away wanted to start the time calculations also funny to note during the 11b argument the crown continued to say that i've gone through this complicated procedure of going through this 11b application and arguing complicated case-law (r v. morin, askov & andrade) and know the inner secrets of the prosecutions deadlines ... that i was playing the courts and that i wasn't some uneducated person, who had no idea what he was doing i was the last person in the court room + my officer and another officer just sitting in ... i was the only one that went to trial (pre-trial anyways) i honestly can not thank OHTA enough, i feel that if i hadn't bumped into this forum and asked for help, i would've been just like the other sheep getting slaughtered by the crown with plea-deals for demerit points i have to admit, putting this much time ... effort and work into this, truly paid off having gone through this process, i have to admit i'm driving so much more safely ... at the limit and all, and making sure i make turns where i'm permitted; never enter a car without making sure the proper documents are there... OHTA i believe has made me a better driver ultimately fatal errors and 11B are technicalities, but hey... it's all in the game i guess.
man o man... what a day, showed up at 0830 and left at 1130
i had to argue my 11B tooth-and-nail and ultimately the judge's decision was in my favour and both charges were stayed
the prosecutor straight up told me that i was playing a "game" during the recess and even during the pre-trial said that people just couldn't give the crown 8 weeks + 1 day for their request
my disclosure request was quite simple in that it just requested for a copy of the officer notes and didn't require a manual or witness statements ... the prosecution went on to argue why i didn't go to trial right away if the disclosure was so "simple" on Aug 2011; the judge actually made me answer that question... in which i responded that getting the disclosure on the day of, was not enough time to mount a defence
so who's feet did the Aug 2011 adjournment belong to was also argued, the crown said that i failed to show due diligence in submitting my first disclosure request in a timely manner, why i didn't request for disclosure as soon as i received my notice of trial in Mar 2011; crown cited R v. Dixon paragraph 55 which states that defence counsel has to show due diligence in pursuit of known disclosure, and during r v. dixon they made a strategic decision not to pursue disclosure knowing full well about it before
and so the prosecution was trying to show that i made a strategic decision to pursue disclosure just a few days before their deadline in the hopes that i wouldn't receive disclosure in time ... seek adjournment ... and ultimately run the 11B clock in my favour, and this type of procedure was frowned upon by the courts
the judge decided that i could not be prejudiced in that regard, and that he felt i did not have any ill-intentions in my submission for disclosure; the guidelines for requesting disclosure he ruled, were set out by the prosecution as 8-weeks, and they should uphold to that
as for due diligence: i kept preaching that i re-requested for disclosure again in Aug 2011, but that fell to deaf ears because I guess the crown wanted you to show .. that you tried to request for disclosure as early as possible ... and continue to seek it, if you haven't received it yet
i expressed prejudice against me from work-related, that i had to request so many days off that my employer felt why am i requesting for days off for a traffic violation that begun in Oct 2010 ... the crown immediately wanted me to swear under oath, but the judged asked me if I wanted to swear under oath or if it was just implied, in which i replied yes "implied"... and that i didn't have a specific instance of prejudice and that the time itself it took had been stress and anxiety-provoking
a lot of time was spent on time calculations for the delay
during my Aug 2011 trial, the judge spoke quite quickly and "inexperienced-me" just responded okay, now the judge asked me whether my intentions to go to trial were made at the first attendance meeting in Dec 2010, i said "yes". and i later provided the transcript to the crown & courts which stated my answer, so the crown tried to argue that the clock starts after the first attendance meeting + "intake period" and their goal was to get the Aug 2011 adjournment on me so the delay starts from the first attendance + intake to the Aug 2011 trial
but i argued that the reason i had the first attendance meeting was to expedite the process instead of bringing it to trial and before the courts, the judge ended up saying that the day i filed the tickets at 137 Edward was when the clock should start, and that is the date i intended to fight the tickets in court and that the First Attendance meeting is merely a part of the trial process
i argued from the beginning that 14 months had elapsed, but when the judge stayed the charges he didn't state how long the delay was, but i guess it's going to be from Nov 01, 2010 (filed the tickets) to Dec 19, 2011 (trial) so 13 months and 19 days.
i satisfied the judge with my 11B motion from the beginning after the arraignment, but it was the crown that prolonged the process by throwing accusations making me look like some super-lawyer playing the system
i honestly didn't expect such resistance from the crown, when i checked-in the crown told me i'd have argue my case and that if i lost the motion the plea-deal wouldn't be on the table ... i agreed and walked in
he pointed me out at recess and told me i'm playing this game , and that i'm going to loose and to take the plea-deal, he also asked me how i knew about the 6-8 weeks? as if it's some trade-secret
the judge also asked me pre-trial if i knew court procedure and i replied no ... that Aug 2011 was just an adjournment so the judge took some time to explain to me how a trial would look like and then told me if i had any questions i could ask him/courts...
now i didn't make my intentions to stay the charges until after the arraignment was made, but because i was facing two charges the clerk interrupted me
clerk ... charge 144 (9) how would you like to plead? me: prior to submitting a plea, i would like to stay these proceedings
clerk: "raises left hand" for me to stop talking
clerk ... charge fail to surrender insurance card... how would you like to plead? me: prior to submitting...
at this point the judge is all like okay, did you serve all the parties?
i said yes, and the fax receipts and affidavit of service, but the judge didn't want to see them and right away wanted to start the time calculations
also funny to note during the 11b argument the crown continued to say that i've gone through this complicated procedure of going through this 11b application and arguing complicated case-law (r v. morin, askov & andrade) and know the inner secrets of the prosecutions deadlines ... that i was playing the courts and that i wasn't some uneducated person, who had no idea what he was doing
i was the last person in the court room + my officer and another officer just sitting in ... i was the only one that went to trial (pre-trial anyways)
i honestly can not thank OHTA enough, i feel that if i hadn't bumped into this forum and asked for help, i would've been just like the other sheep getting slaughtered by the crown with plea-deals for demerit points
i have to admit, putting this much time ... effort and work into this, truly paid off
having gone through this process, i have to admit i'm driving so much more safely ... at the limit and all, and making sure i make turns where i'm permitted; never enter a car without making sure the proper documents are there... OHTA i believe has made me a better driver
ultimately fatal errors and 11B are technicalities, but hey... it's all in the game i guess.
I guess the point is, technology is great... but don't rely on it to think for you. If it's designed by humans it can make as many mistakes as humans can... or more...
Not received disclosure, my options?
