“Region Of York V. Mcguigan Is This Unconstitutional?”

Well, were do we begin? I recently was made aware of this matter. I was denied the manual for the speed measuring device used against me. I thought that the onus of disclosure was on the prosecutor. The prosecutor says it's third party material. Prosecutor then lets the officer make statement that he tested and used the device according the specifications of the manufacture's manual. Can this be objected for the fact that I was not made aware of the manual and did not receive full disclosure?

Did you object at the time ?

Sorry, to get back to you so late, I was out of the province for work. No, I didn't object. My question is, if the prosecutor is using the information and evidence of the officer, then don't we have a right to the same information? This new precedence that was set is saying the manual is third party. The Charter for disclosure says the onus of disclosure is on the prosecutor. The manual is not privileged information, it is public information. The manual is not out of their control, the prosecutor admits to having a copy in their office. Finally, the manual is relevant information, all officers admit to testing and using the speed measuring device according to the specifications of the manual. So how can this be third party information?

You don't have the right to the manual, paralegals have been trying forever to get it.

If a full copy is available at the office of the prosecutor. You can schedule an appointment to review it and take notes.

It really depends on which court house you get. Some e-mail you a PDF of the entire manual.

Most will give you the relevant pages for the testing, which the officer will provide evidence for.