“No Full Disclosure Provided After 2 Court Appearance”

To clarify further , i am new to all theses

There was 2 person facing the audience, the JP, the clerk of the court clerk ( wearing a gown)

then the prosecutor and myself facing he JP, in my case the prosecutor seems to be a clerk not a lawyer.

Thanks,

Why do you say that ? The Crown Prosecutor is a lawyer.

From here

Personally if I was in your situation I would file two motions:

1. 11B under the charter for unreasonable delay

2. section 7 under the charter, failure to provide disclosure

With these two motions it would be extremely hard to believe that crown would continue to proceed, they don't have the time to deal with this much headache and would simply move on to the next case.

Out of curiosity, which courthouse is this?

Observer135 wrote:Personally if I was in your situation I would file two motions:

1. 11B under the charter for unreasonable delay

2. section 7 under the charter, failure to provide disclosure

With these two motions it would be extremely hard to believe that crown would continue to proceed, they don't have the time to deal with this much headache and would simply move on to the next case.

Ah, the famous jsherk defence.......hey, it's worked for him.

I prepared 11b document, 6 copies form requesting stay of proceeding, stamped by the attorney general of Canada and Ontario, I went to court ( Markham location) stamped by the court office and prosecutor office, I left each one a copy.

I prepared a folder with 6 tabs, notice of application, sworn statement,copy of the ticket, notice of trial, copy of the supreme court of Canada's decision in Askov v. R. , copy of the supreme court of Canada decision in R. v. Morin. The procesutor and the crown knew I am filing 11b.

The JP ask me If 11b is not accepted, am I ready for a trial, I said no since I didn't receive a video disclosure. I explain that this is my third court apperance with no disclosure the crown is delaying the proceeding since they didn't provide a disclosure. Also they needed me to have 3 copies of the folder, one for JP , one for Procesutor and another one for myself

JP asked me if I have a transcript of previsous court apperance, I said no. JP didn't accept the motion, to make thing worst the officer showed up with the video. So the trial is adjoured again.

I went to the court office to get a transcipt , it will cost about $150 to get three copies of the transcript. I am screwed either way.

Yes I think JP needs previous transcripts in order to calculate the time and make sure that it took too long.

You can still file another 11b for the next court appearance, you just need the transcripts from all previous appearances and the one you just had.

This will help your 11b though since the delay is again because the prosecution only provided you the disclosure at this last appearance, so you still need time to prepare. But if you were at the 11b time frame already, then even if this last delay is not counted against, you should still win next time (as long as you have copies of transcripts).

Did they give you a copy of video or only let you watch it? In my opinion, if they did not give you a copy, then they still have not fulfilled their obligation to disclose it to you.

jsherk wrote:

Did they give you a copy of video or only let you watch it? In my opinion, if they did not give you a copy, then they still have not fulfilled their obligation to disclose it to you.

I would agree with this.

They did gave me a copy fo the video, as well as I watched with the prosecutor. If the JP don't accept 11b, then I will have to go to trial on the spot, they what I was told last time.

There is a risk , I will have to pay $$$ for the transcripts which is more than the ticket itself, and there is no guarrantee.

There will probably be an increase in insurance that will cost more than the trsanscripts. And yes true, there is never a guanrantee. But win or lose, I always look at it as "investing in my legal education".

You could always take a law course and not waste taxpayers money ?

Its the government that is wasting the taxpayers money, not those that are standing up to fight for their rights (innocent until proven guilty, right to a fair trial).

How is the government wasting money if 'they' are laying charges that are correct. The concept of innocent until proven guilty is supposed to protect the innocent. If you know you committed the offence yet play games with the court process to try to get off then it is absolutely you that is wasting the tax payers resources.

Same argument round and round... If they were actually charging people with real crimes or things that were actually unsafe, then that would be one thing. But when the majority of provincial offences are paperwork crimes or pre-crime then those are not really crimes at all, and are simply revenue generation.

The concept of innocent until proven guilty is exactly that... you are not guilty of anything until it has been proven.