You're making life overly complex for yourself. Your tactics are just going to work against you.
First off, as has already been said, disclosure is YOURS to be had. YOU
are the one who has to follow up and make all diligent efforts to acquire it. In other words, they aren't going to mail it to you, nor are they even going to write to you to indicate its ready. YOU have to call in or email them to follow up. There's really no excuse today why an indigent person can't simply go to the public library, sign up for a free email address and do this. If you have a cellphone, you'll be hard pressed to justify why that wasn't use. You clearly have access to internet since you're posting on this site!!!! So, any argument as to why you couldn't take reasonable steps to follow up will simply be met with you attending court, getting an adjournment (while you get the disclosure in person) and have to come back. In other words, you're just wasting your time. Plus, the disclosure should have already all been sent to you----the photos and the cover page indicating your speed, time, location of offence, etc. Red light camera offences are not likely to yield a stay of proceedings for non-disclosure. It simply does not happen in practice since it is sent right away.
Secondly, remember that there's no prejudice to the Crown whatsoever. There are no witnesses to be called and the evidence is already preserved, so any delay really is only wasting YOUR time; no one elses.
Thirdly, you'll have virtually no chance of arguing that going 30km per hour, you would have been able to stop before the line. If your argument is that you stopped way BEFORE the line and were already doing 30km at the point of the photo while making your right turn, then that argument will also be shot down as well. That would be mean you stopped at an unreasonable location whereby you stopped before the intersection but at a spot where you could not reasonably see the entire intersection, nor be seen by others. Its just pure physics dealing with speed, acceleration and distance! Such a stop would not be consistent with the 'pith and substance' of the HTA legislation. After all, the purpose of stopping at the line is to 1) have vehicles STOP first before the intersection; and 2) be able to see clearly AND be seen clearly by others at the intersection PRIOR to any further movements.
Bottom line: definitely try your luck with your arguments, but I can tell you that they have been tried numerous times and have ALWAYS been shot down quickly
; so quick that you can almost see smoke come from them!!!
Thanks for your response and also taking the time to write a detailed reply.
As you said, "YOU have to call in or email them to follow up.
" Perfect - that's exactly what I'll do. I'm not trying to be difficult, but no, I do not make use of a personal phone nor any sort of phone number that can be reliably used. As well, their website does not state it will email you disclosure nor notify you via email it will be ready. Therefore, their procedure puts me
in a bind. But if I have provided a means by which to contact me and they make no move to do so, I believe that does indeed constitute a failure of due diligence, and as I mentioned I think there is jurisprudence to that accord.
If you have spent time at a POA office you'll know that it's anything but inefficient. They typically don't even accept new arrivals within two hours of closing; therefore, I think making me come to pick it up whereas most other jurisdictions (Durham, Waterloo, others) will deliver it to you remotely is not "bending over backwards," as has been said before - I think it's duly reasonable, especially considering they expect the same from me for the request. Personally, it does feel like a stonewall tactic, but that's not relevant now is it. I fail to see how expecting them to send a letter is unreasonable considering they've already sent two.
Regardless of the contents of my disclosure, it is still my right to request one, and their obligation to fulfill it: I do not however intend to cause myself excessive difficulty in obtaining it. I will fulfill my due diligence in obtaining it, as I always do, but I will not absolve the crown of all responsibility of that fulfillment.
If the OHTA wants to consider some stop to be "unreasonable" then it should specify some kind of criteria beyond "immediately" before the intersection, and I don't think that's ridiculous to ask. When laws are left fuzzy or open ended they are prone to interpretation of the same nature. Additionally, how does this jive with the sensor range of the camera? What if I had stopped an inch further forward and it wouldn't have tripped?
Finally, that's not really my argument. Rather, my argument is that I know that I stopped, but any evidence I could have had is unavailable now due to an unnecessary delay between the commission of the act and my first notification. If a police officer had stopped me, I would have had due cause to note the time, conditions, and preserve my videographic evidence, whether it proved me innocent or guilty. My argument is that I am now rendered unable to do that, and I believe that that is a violation of my rights. If I had been in the middle of the intersection, yes, that would be far harder to defend because I would have no cause to be there, but right turns by their very nature are much more of a grey area as they strongly rely on subjective judgment. Therefore, it was the province's choice to apply this system to this situation and furthermore their responsibility to notify me which they did with unacceptable tardiness. Given that the intersection is clear of traffic and pedestrians, the moral implications of this are therefore questionable and the charge is purely punitive.
Again irrelevant to the actual facts but a personal opinion, it's all letter and no spirit, and mechanical application of the law has fundamentally been argued against. Then again, I have a serious problem with relying on financial motivation to goad dangerous drivers into behaving; if they actually wanted to address the behaviour, they should photograph the face of the driver so that we can seek measures to revoke their driving privileges, because I guarantee you'll find most are repeat offenders. Dangerous driving is not a one-off.
Thus, in this specific case, yes, I believe I have a valid case, if for no other reason than to have the province address these issues. I do not believe for one second the red light camera system is infallible, both in light of photoradar of the days past and as a design of sensor systems myself, so the knee-jerk response of "you're guilt just pay up" is even more summary than the province's system and I don't completely understand it.
In the end, I don't believe that I am wasting my time, because I'm doing one of the most fundamentally important things any Canadian can and should, and that's attempting to make full use of all rights and means to them to obtain what they believe is the satisfaction of justice.
I don't believe I deserve this ticket, I think the system is flawed, and I think that's why I got this ticket, and I want the province to address that, successful or not. They impugned my ability to defend myself, and therefore the question of guilt is poisoned - this is exactly why I have a dashcam. I think this is reasonably, or at least necessarily rectifiable. And so I think the matter of guilt is the cart we're putting before the horse here.
Thus, in my questions, I am trying to make sure I am fulfilling all my responsibilities in my efforts. I am trying to make sure I am not doing anything dubious, unethical, illegal or otherwise. Whether or not it makes life easier or harder for the crown is not my concern.