Automotive

request for disclosure

  • Last Updated:
  • Dec 10th, 2008 11:59 pm
Tags:
None
Newbie
Jun 15, 2008
21 posts
GTA
phht wrote:
Apr 30th, 2008 3:44 pm
What can i do if the disclosure comes back with no new info or no written note by the police officer?
Did you ask for all the officer's notes? You have to be specific. It's like pulling teeth with municipal prosecutors. Ask specifically for any of the officer's notes, for both sides of the ticket (officer will usually write their notes on the back of their copy of the ticket), and even for a will say statement from the officer. R. v. Stinchcombe entitles you to these bits of disclosure.

Submit another request for disclosure, asking for these specific things. I would be amazed if the officer didn't write notes on the back of the ticket.

As for the officer couldn't see the white line, isn't he saying that he didn't see you stop AT ALL? In that case, there's no need for him to see the white line, as s. 136(1)(a) covers all those cases where intersections have no markings.

s. 11(b) all the way dude.

Let us know if the extra disclosure offers up anything new.
[OP]
Member
Apr 23, 2008
487 posts
14 upvotes
FreddyDriver wrote:
Jul 17th, 2008 6:10 pm
Isn't this a lot of effort to fight a $85 ticket?
sure is, when you have your insurance breathing down your neck.
baldy73 wrote:
Jul 17th, 2008 5:45 pm
Did you ask for all the officer's notes? You have to be specific. It's like pulling teeth with municipal prosecutors. Ask
.
I got it, charter defence all the way, thanks. he has notes on the back of the ticket, i did not get the disclosure last time in court cuz of wrong unit number. I will request disclosure again then.
[OP]
Member
Apr 23, 2008
487 posts
14 upvotes
baldy73 wrote:
Jul 17th, 2008 5:29 pm
I believe it would still work. I had an 11(b) application just barely denied recently, and the JP was going off a time of 9m5d from date of filing for a trial, and the 1st trial date.
.
Thanks i will definitely try this 1st.

Please click the link for pic.
Officer's view was obstructed by the fence at stop sign. If the black car front bumper was to line up with the marked stop line, the car is blocked from officer's view.

Image
[OP]
Member
Apr 23, 2008
487 posts
14 upvotes
I went to trial today, cop no show, charge withdrawn.
Thanks to everybody, Nikita, Alvito, Pintobean and others in this forum who gave me lots of tips in preparing my case as well as info on how traffic court was conducted.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Nov 27, 2006
16131 posts
359 upvotes
Etobicoke
phht wrote:
Dec 3rd, 2008 8:17 pm
I went to trial today, cop no show, charge withdrawn.
Thanks to everybody, Nikita, Alvito, Pintobean and others in this forum who gave me lots of tips in preparing my case as well as info on how traffic court was conducted.
You're very welcome phht...and congrats on a successful outcome!
[OP]
Member
Apr 23, 2008
487 posts
14 upvotes
i could not have done it if it was not for the internet and this forum. i remember when i got a traffic ticket some 20 years ago, i had no idea how to proceed except pleading guilty.

I have question though, if I had filed "notice of Constitution" and the officer did not show up, what would have happened?
would the JP have ruled on the s11b and the trial date would be postponed?
or would i have asked the JP that i wish not to proceed with s11b but to go immediately to trial?
Jr. Member
User avatar
Dec 7, 2008
192 posts
1 upvote
Toronto
phht wrote:
Dec 7th, 2008 10:41 pm
I have question though, if I had filed "notice of Constitution" and the officer did not show up, what would have happened?
would the JP have ruled on the s11b and the trial date would be postponed?
or would i have asked the JP that i wish not to proceed with s11b but to go immediately to trial?
The prosecutor withdrew the charge since the Crown's only witness (the cop) wasn't there. They did not have any evidence to present and could not have a trial. The prosecutor could have asked for an adjournment but it would be unlikely that he would get one since you showed up prepared for the trial.

Your application for a stay as the only remedy to an 11b infringement would only be heard if there was going to be a trial. Stay means stop the trial. The justice can allow it or deny it and this is done pre-trial. Rather than taking up the court's time with these arguments, the prosecutor preempted the application by withdrawing the charge.

Getting a stay, withdrawing the charge, or being found not guilty are three very different outcomes but they all produce the result you want: no conviction.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Nov 27, 2006
16131 posts
359 upvotes
Etobicoke
phht wrote:
Dec 7th, 2008 10:41 pm
i could not have done it if it was not for the internet and this forum. i remember when i got a traffic ticket some 20 years ago, i had no idea how to proceed except pleading guilty.

I have question though, if I had filed "notice of Constitution" and the officer did not show up, what would have happened?
would the JP have ruled on the s11b and the trial date would be postponed?
or would i have asked the JP that i wish not to proceed with s11b but to go immediately to trial?
The officer is never present for constitutional motions. C motions are argued by lawyers (or agents) only based on affidavit evidence of the witnesses and the record of court proceedings. There is no oral testimony given, therefore no need for the cop to show, in fact if you are represented there's no need for you to be there either. The only people that need to be present for a s.11(b) motion, or any constituional question, are the Crown, the defendant (or his/her agent) and the JP.
Jr. Member
User avatar
Dec 7, 2008
192 posts
1 upvote
Toronto
Nikita wrote:
Dec 9th, 2008 12:59 pm
The officer is never present for constitutional motions. C motions are argued by lawyers (or agents) only based on affidavit evidence of the witnesses and the record of court proceedings. There is no oral testimony given, therefore no need for the cop to show, in fact if you are represented there's no need for you to be there either. The only people that need to be present for a s.11(b) motion, or any constituional question, are the Crown, the defendant (or his/her agent) and the JP.
OK first off I want to say I'm a newbie here AND I have a lot of respect for your (award winning) posts. So with that in mind, here are a few things I want to point out. A justice can consider a constitutional motion before, during or after a trial. Oral arguments are also heard (Crown & defendant/rep). Example: R. v. Araujo, 2008 ONCJ 507 The cop should be nearby in case the motion is heard after trial instead of pre-trial. He would have to testify at some point or the Crown would have to seek an adjournment or withdraw. No cop, no case.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Nov 27, 2006
16131 posts
359 upvotes
Etobicoke
ticketcombat wrote:
Dec 9th, 2008 1:55 pm
OK first off I want to say I'm a newbie here AND I have a lot of respect for your (award winning) posts. So with that in mind, here are a few things I want to point out. A justice can consider a constitutional motion before, during or after a trial. Oral arguments are also heard (Crown & defendant/rep). Example: R. v. Araujo, 2008 ONCJ 507 The cop should be nearby in case the motion is heard after trial instead of pre-trial. He would have to testify at some point or the Crown would have to seek an adjournment or withdraw. No cop, no case.
Yes, a JP can consider any motion at any time during a trial, I agree. However, in practice, and especially for an 11(b) motion, courts schedule motions in one court and trials in another and rarely, very rarely in one proceeding. IF that is the case, both sides will know that well ahead of time, as scheduling is done ahead of time, and notice is given to both sides, so they will know that the trial will follow the motion and can have their witnesses there. There are no surprises, there is no trial by ambush, notice WILL be given to both sides how the hearings will proceed. In the vast majority of HTA cases, that's the procedure, all counsel know that, therefore there is no need for the Crown to have it's cop-witness, or the defendant to be present if represented by an agent,sitting in court 'in case' trial follows immediately.

It goes without saying that 'oral arguments are heard' during a motion...at least I thought it went without saying. I've yet to see a hearing where everyone sits mute. But those oral arguments are made by counsel based on affidavit evidence, not oral testimony (of which there is none in motions court). Apparently I wasn't clear and made the assumption that that was self-explanatory when I said 'argued by lawyers (or agents) only based on affidavit evidence of the witnesses' (notice the word 'argued').

BTW, welcome newbie....lol...your username is perfect for this forum, I guess we'll be seeing you around more often?
Jr. Member
User avatar
Dec 7, 2008
192 posts
1 upvote
Toronto
Nikita wrote:
Dec 9th, 2008 4:36 pm
BTW, welcome newbie....lol...your username is perfect for this forum, I guess we'll be seeing you around more often?
Thanks for the welcome. I found this site a few days ago. I've posted in other forums/sites mostly helping people fight traffic tickets. Hence my website: www.ticketcombat.com. I launched it this summer and I've found posting on forums and the feedback helps me learn more and improve my site as well. You can't know everything and the case law changes rapidly. There are some very knowledgeable people on this site and I'm looking forward to the back and forth.
Deal Addict
Jan 12, 2005
1032 posts
ticketcombat wrote:
Dec 9th, 2008 6:36 pm
Thanks for the welcome. I found this site a few days ago. I've posted in other forums/sites mostly helping people fight traffic tickets. Hence my website: www.ticketcombat.com. I launched it this summer and I've found posting on forums and the feedback helps me learn more and improve my site as well. You can't know everything and the case law changes rapidly. There are some very knowledgeable people on this site and I'm looking forward to the back and forth.
Wow, great website!! I was reading it over, and its amazing how detailed it is, THANK YOU for having it up! Hopefully its permanent!
[OP]
Member
Apr 23, 2008
487 posts
14 upvotes
Correct me if i am wrong: if i had filed the "Notice of Constitution" for that court date, my charge may not have been withdrawn on that day due to cop's absence, but a new trial date may be set. That's to say when i filed a 11b motion 15 days before my set trial date, i could not take advantage of the cop's absence on that day!
Jr. Member
User avatar
Dec 7, 2008
192 posts
1 upvote
Toronto
phht wrote:
Dec 10th, 2008 1:24 pm
Correct me if i am wrong: if i had filed the "Notice of Constitution" for that court date, my charge may not have been withdrawn on that day due to cop's absence, but a new trial date may be set. That's to say when i filed a 11b motion 15 days before my set trial date, i could not take advantage of the cop's absence on that day!
Basically you are filing a notice of motion. In other words, you are saying, "hey, I'm going to make a motion when my trial comes up." At trial, if you don't see the cop, don't make the motion. Nikita and I have different experiences at court. Yes there shouldn't be surprises. But it shouldn't surprise you that there are surprises.

Top