Hello whenaxis,

So you are saying that s. 813 of the Criminal Code of Canada, pertaining to summary conviction appeals, does not grant the right to appeal?

I was studying cases on CanLII's website and noticed many traffic infractions were appealed on grounds laid out under s. 813:

https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skqb/doc/2 ... ultIndex=5

The provincial summary offences act does not contain information on the appeal process in my province.

Am I misunderstanding something here?

Folks, I have filed already a notice of appeal. I have a question if anyone with knowledge could kindly answer: 1) Can a legal argument which was not introduced at trial, be introduced in appeal? Example, no mention of a certain rule or regulation, or court case precedent was brought up in the defendants arguments during the trial, but the appellant now seeks to raise a legal error of law issue that was not considered by the trial judge, although not submitted by the defence during the trial. An example of my case would be that the trial justice failed to consider s. 57 (a)(b)(c) of the eviden...

Did you admit to it? Did you make sure there were signs posted advising you of the construction zone?

Like daggx suggested, you must obtain the disclosure to see what evidence the police officer has on you, if any.

Hey guys

Can anyone take a look at my grounds for appeal of my notice to appeal and tell me if everything is acceptable?

This is my first time doing this so I've been using the resources I can find online.

A lot of cases when the defendant testifies, the justice of the peace or the judge conducts a "W.D. analysis" and it comes from the case law R. v. W.(D), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, which states: First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit. Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit. Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by t...

Do you have any proof that you requested media files from them when you asked for disclosure and they said-- NO. If so, that would be trickery and you could ask the court for a delay pending review of disclosure not initially revealed to you. In your position, I would wholeheartedly inform the court I was completely sure that I came to an adequate stop, without any hesitation at all. Your word against his word; his word has no evidence or merit to back it. Him being a police officer isn't enough to disqualify or discredit your word. I've come across a Supreme Court decision that says something...

Hey folks, The justice ruled against against me. Nonetheless, I plan to appeal the ruling under error of law, which I believe there is substantial and straight-forward evidence of. For my notice of appeal, which I intend to file with the court on Tuesday, I am seeking to include something along these lines: i) Justice Rondo erred in permitting a video to be weighed upon when the court officer (who also made the video) cited a malfunction of the police dashcam video. Police were unable to defense the limitations of malfunction. Court officer conceded to defence that there was a troubleshooting ...

Well, I got a call the other day and it was to delay the hearing for another month and few days; there was a major snow storm and the justice told me that he could not make it on time and was having trouble viewing the video. He has not decided whether to admit the video or not. Postponed until April 12th for a phone hearing and verdict (though he made a mistake and called it sentencing, informing me that I should receive a letter in the mail confirming the changes).

3rd Delay!

Hey folks,

In peoples experience here, is a delayed verdict better for the defence or the prosecution?

With my case, the judge said he had many things to consider and review. I felt it was in my favor but was wondering your expert opinions?

That may be true in many cases but often I have sought a second version to the story which has resulted in no charge being laid. If you say nothing the officer can only rely on the other person's version of events. On top of that is the tactic I recommend to my friends: be friendly and apologise. Often that will get you a warning. Of course if you do get a ticket then you have dropped yourself in it but the vast majority of speeding tickets are lost at trial anyway so I think it's a better option to try and avoid the ticket in the first place. Well that has helped too at times. I prefer to sa...

perryub wrote:They have no evidence of anything, aside from possibly the cop's word. I believe in the mantra of, "admit nothing, deny everything, make counteraccuations".

I believe in the Legal Advice 101 rule, which states: "Never say anything to the police."

Nothing you say to the police will benefit you; if anything, it will always be used against you.

Who cares if you did it. They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did it.

Ask for the disclosure and see what evidence they have at all.

Just because you may have admitted it at the time, doesn't mean they have evidence that you ever did.

I would challenge it in court. They want to waste your time with a minuscule ticket like that, waste their money and send it to trial.

Maybe you can use the "De Minimis Non Curat Lex" defense.

I had day 2 of this stop sign trial (another full hour today of me questioning). Decision was not given today, the justice told me that I can be reached by telephone for the decision March 8th- attend only if I want to. He has alot of evidence to consider. The justice refused to consider the second offense at all, denying the prosecution the right to pursue it- focusing on the first one. He said that he appreciates me attending court twice so far. I got the "guy who made the video" to admit he was clueless about technical specs and that the audio malfunction, as occurred in the video...

Well, how can the officer actually prove you were on your phone at the stop light (whether you were or were not, irrelevant)?

This has to be proven in court, beyond any reasonable doubt.

Unless you admitted to the officer and he had a body camera or a microphone with him, as some Ontario police do, how can that be proven?

I would get the disclosure first and see what evidence he has on you, if any, then go from there!

Congratualtions on doing what sounds like a good job in court! Basically after you ask all the officers all the questions you want, you will then get a chance to take the witness stand and give your side of the story. When that is all done, you get to present your closing arguments which is where you basically summarize all the problems with officers testimonies and say you should be found not guilty. Thanks. Those two police officers were truly annoyed and frustrated by me, they couldn't believe they were overruled and I thought the witness (ticketing officer) was about to pound his chest ou...