Search found 380 matches

In almost all jurisdictions, you'll get your disclosure handed to you just as you walk in for your meeting with the Prosecutor---without even having to ask for it. In fact, many jurisdictions will withdraw the charge if the disclosure is NOT available at the time since no meaningful resolution discussions could be had without either side having the ...

1) They're not going to withdraw a 44 over ticket unless there's a screw up that can't be fixed. If you're a 1st time offender, they might offer you 29 over (at best). If so, I'd take the deal since it will only be 3 points and much cheaper of a fine. Its still a conviction but lets face it, are you really going to be able to get acquitted on a 44 ...

The onus is on the defendant to establish why something not disclosed must be disclosed; it is not for the Crown to justify its decision otherwise. The Stinchcombe obligation only states that the Crown must disclose that which is relevant and within its control to the case. For things it does not disclose, the defendant is the one who bears the ...

"Take it to trial. Insist it wasn't 8am yet by your watch."

Highwaystar, I'm not sure this site is about advising people to purger themselves. The OP said he believed it was 8 or after.

Thanks for mentioning this Argyll. I can see how my comments could lead one to think I'm suggesting they commit perjury. That was never my intent. I certainly ...

Take it to trial. Insist it wasn't 8am yet by your watch.

The officer likely will not make notes about how he tested his clock or watch and when it was last calibrated. So, you can raise doubt that the actual time was actually 7:57am (for example) and therefore you didn't commit the act. A thorough cross-examination on the validity of the officer ...

Technically speaking, the manual is hearsay evidence since it was written by someone else and they are not in court to testify on the document. That is, no one is there to 'authenticate' the document as having been written by them, not having been altered, etc.

However, you can always employ a 'side-way' evidence strategy so that the JP at least ...

Judicial notice can only be made on such facts that are so well-known that they are indisputable by anyone and therefore common knowledge. For instance, if water goes below zero degrees, it freezes. That's pretty common knowledge. However, saying that water always freezes outside in January is not an indisputable fact because while more than likely ...

Unfortunately, its not possible to make a general statement that all private property is not considered a 'highway' under the HTA. There are several examples of 'private' locations such as mall parking lots which have been designated 'highways' by by-law, making them subject to the HTA. Usually that is in very busy places like some spots of ...

Case law is generally submitted at the end of the case when the parties are making their final submissions. However, there may be times during a proceeding where case law may also need to be introduced. For example, when a motion or application is being made (i.e. at the start of the case or during the proceeding) or during a 'voir dire' (a trial ...

Unfortunately, your boyfriend's stuck in a legal uncertainty. You see, several courts have held that citing the wrong section number with a conflicting offence description IS a fatal flaw. See the case of R.v.Stuparayk and Firmino .

However, the Ontario Court of Appeal has also permitted leave to appeal in another case because a different case ...

Actually, the officer absolutely needs to attend. Only they can properly identify you. Without that, the prosecutor fails to meet its case. Its weird that someone would even suggest that the officer is not essential; its not possible to prove the case otherwise since it fails on the ID element.
I don't want to distribute misinformation within the ...

It all depends on how much the prosecutor believes from you. After all, are they really going to believe that you were in the process of overtaking the truck? More likely, they are going to think that you were actually driving straight through and would have continued to do so, but for the accident. However, if the prosecutor buys your story that ...

Section 148(5) deals with overtaking cars. Its aim is actually to require that you pass on the left. However, prosecutors commonly use that section as a means to negotiate down from careless driving or follow too closely interpreting it as a 'lane change' section as oppose to an 'overtaking' section. Unfortunately though, many jurisdictions ...

First off, if you're already at trial, its because you didn't take any offer----pretty risky move on your part. However, if you ARE at trial and neither officer shows up, then the prosecutor can't make out their case since they can't properly identify you. If they don't get an adjournment, then the case will undoubtedly be dismissed at that point ...

Actually, the officer absolutely needs to attend. Only they can properly identify you. Without that, the prosecutor fails to meet its case. Its weird that someone would even suggest that the officer is not essential; its not possible to prove the case otherwise since it fails on the ID element.

By the way, the prosecutor will only offer you Fail ...

A lot of people seem to get the disclosure right incorrect. The prosecutor merely has to make it reasonable available----they do not have to ensure it is delivered to the defendant. The onus is on the defendant to follow up and retrieve it. Clearly, the prosecution is providing you with 3 reasonable methods of obtaining disclosure. If you don't ...

What prejudice have you suffered because of the delay? After all, the evidence is merely photographic (doesn't require viva voce evidence) and there are no insurance or demerit consequences.

I actually think it will be VERY difficult to win an 11b argument on such an offence because you won't be able to justify any meaningful 'prejudicial' effect ...

Unless you've got a way to defend yourself, I would just take the deal. The disclosure seems fine and there is nothing glaring that presents any defence for you.

As for why they offered you a good deal, likely its because you didn't get any roadside reduction and have little or no record. Had you gotten a roadside reduction, I think you'd be SOL ...

Do case law research on Canlii.org and you'll quickly see the courts have repeatedly held that section 2 (1) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act , requires that the owner or lessee ensures the motor vehicle is insured under a contract of automobile insurance.

The section is not concerned with whether a driver is insured---driver coverage ...

Are you really going to say that you didn't have a clear view of the full intersection (because a bus was blocking your view) yet you decided to make a left turn anyway? That won't cut it----the act is all that needs to be proven; not your intention to disobey the sign. The court will simply say that you should have waited to have a better view ...

Actually, as early as 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada held in the Ladoucer decision that an officer can randomly stop vehicles to check the " the mechanical fitness of the vehicle, the possession of a valid licence and proper insurance, and the sobriety of the driver . "

So, if you don't want to pull down your window, the officer can simply just ...

...In R. v. Ainsworth it makes mention of R. v. Duncan 2012 O.J. No. 6405 which is different from the the one you mention of R. v. Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160)
But I cannot find R. v. Duncan 2012 O.J. No. 6405 on Canlii ... anybody know what happened to it and where it can be found?
Its actually the same decision. The Duncan citation used in the ...

"3 pieces of identification" is Sovereign Citizen horse s***.
I totally agree.

Thankfully, the Sovereign Citizen (aka. Freeman) arguments are being readily dismissed by the courts now. After the decision in Meads v. Meads , which has been adapted in Ontario by several courts now, including R. v. Ainsworth , their arguments truly are treated ...

While your question is easy, the answer is actually quite complex. Statutorily, there is no legislation that requires an officer to disclose their full identity to you. However, as others have consistently stated already, most officers are bound by the polices/rules of their individual police services. If they contravene that, they can be brought ...

You simply need to rely upon the court decision of R. v. Isik. The court held that the sticker portion on the plate is mandatory, whereas the sticker portion on the permit is discretionary. So, if you had your validation sticker on the plate, then that's all that is absolutely necessary.

You DO realize that the prosecution has templates (books of authority, facta, replies, etc.) readily available to reply to Charter applications, right? You're doing ALL this work filing a section 7 application and throwing whatever you think will 'stick' and in about 30 minutes, they'll pump out a reply and gather whatever they can to meet their ...

I highly doubt they'll give you ANY break. After all, you clearly don't like to follow the rules of the road (having had so many demerits that you got suspended), then totally disregard any suspensions imposed on you. Then, you make little to no effort to make things better for yourself by following through on paying your amounts owed. As an ...

Prosecutors know all the charges you are facing and have your entire driver's abstract. That's how they file things---all charges from one set of facts for a defendant are placed in the same envelope/folder. It keeps everything tidy and all correspondence and filings are kept together. Its also easier to schedule officers for court. So, you have ...

It seems like you got one of the new e-tickets (which ARE permitted). The officer's notes do not need to be handwritten. They simply use the laptop inside the cruiser which populates a lot of your data once your driver's license is swiped and then they type in their additional notes. There should be some notes about things like the officer's ...

You're almost there! Just a few insights to ensure you're perfectly clear.

The officer's notes DO matter. If the officer makes no mention of 84km in his notes but only refers to the speed you were charged with, then you can use that to raise reasonable doubt if he testifies to a different speed. In that case, the prosecutor also can't 'amend up ...