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 hotline that he could have consulted prior to admitting video into court as evidence, which he admittingly, did not consult, despite fully being aware of the seriousness and clout of a court ruling.
ii) Justice Rondo erred in judgement by making an assumption the missing data on the video was not important to the case. In the words of Justice Rondo, he considered the missing data as "neutral" on part of prosecution and defendment; despite the defense seeking to admit the audio portion of the video, the justice made an assumption that it was not important to the case. How can missing data from a digital file be considered as neutral when defense sought to use data that should have been included in the file as per ticketing officers testimony?
iii) Justice Rondo erred in judgement by admitting the dashcam video, which failed to satisfy the "Proving Integrity Of Electronic Records System" requirements pertaining to the "electronic record system" as required by the Saskatchewan Evidence Act (57)(a)(b)(c); the evidence offered digitally also failed to satisfy the Best Evidence Rule. The Best Evidence Rule (Sec 56(1) of Saskatchewan Evidence Act) prescribes that the original copy of evidence be presented in court, how could the Justice assume such considering data was admittingly omitted, by error, while in custody of the police.
IV) Justice Rondo erred in judgement by failing to clarify in his judgement, how the police dashcam video satisfied the requirements of the Saskatchewan Evidence Act despite the defenses argument.
V) Justice Rondo informed the defense that he did not understand technology terminology nor what a frame rate was, which was imperative to being able to fairly interprut digital video which was provided to the police to the court, on CD-ROM. Police Prosecutor Det. Dechief, misinformed Justice Rondo that the available video was on a DVD, not a CD-ROM, a substantial difference in data storage and technology which has the ability to profoundly change the way the video was perceived on Justice Rondo's laptop. Justice Rondo was left susceptible to police interpretation, which the Justice relied upon the assumed integrity of the police, which did not correctly tell the truth before the courts (Evidence will be included with court files.) Furthermore, contrary to The Best Evidence Rule, the "Electronic Record (the CD-Rom, not DVD), was stored and processed by a party not adverse (Sec. 56bc of SK Evidence Act) to the party seeking to introduce evidence before the courts; the party who held custody and processed the electronic record (the CD-Rom of Dashcam Footage) had direct gain from obtaining a favourable judgement, based on the video created by the police who also acted as the prosecutor.
VI) Justice Rondo erred in judgement by permitting a ticket which was not regular in its face and failed to properly contain a certificate of offense notice. All spaces provided for the certificate of offense were left blank and checkmark was on the outside of the box, failing to satisfy the Saskatchewan Summary Offence Regulations which perscribe "in the spaces provided." By failing to properly check the certificate of offense box, there was no certificate of offence notice served, which is contrary to Sec 18(1)(a)(ii)(iii) and (b) of the Saskatchewan Summary Offences Act.
From the Saskatchewan Evidence Act, which is almost exactly worded, if not exactly worded, for the most part as the Canadian Evidence Act
Proving integrity of electronic records system
57 In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the integrity of the electronic records
system in or by which an electronic record is recorded or stored is proven for the
purposes of subsection 56(1):
(a) by evidence that supports a finding that at all material times the computer
system or other similar device was operating properly or, if it was not, the fact
of its not operating properly did not affect the integrity of the electronic record
and there are no reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the electronic
(b) if it is established that the electronic record was recorded or stored by
a party to the proceeding who is adverse in interest to the party seeking to
introduce it; or
(c) if it is established that the electronic record was recorded or stored in the
usual and ordinary course of business by a person who is not a party to the
proceeding and who did not record or store it under the control of the party
seeking to introduce the record
and The Best Evidence Rule
Application of best evidence rule
56(1) Subject to subsection (2), where the best evidence rule applies to an electronic
record, the rule is satisfied on proof of the integrity of the electronic records system
in or by which the electronic record was recorded or stored.
(2) An electronic record in the form of a printout that has been manifestly or
consistently acted on, relied on or used is the record for the purposes of the best
Can anyone tell me their opinion? It seems straight forward that the Justice erred in making a unsubstantiated assumption that a video which the police admitted was malfunctioning, that the police officer who made the video declined to make an attempt to rectify the video errors with the equipment supplier despite admittingly before the courts, having the opportunity to do so. Justice Rondo made an assumption that the rest of the video was sufficient, despite the defense seeking to admit the missing portion of the data on the video.
Does anyone know if I can seek a "Stay Of Fine Payment & Conviction" pending the outcome of the appeal?
Any information would be appreciated. I have already initiated the transcript request. Even though the ticket is only $230, I have an immense interest in defeating it, even if it costs me $2000!