“Changed Ticket”

Have been busy and haven't had much time to follow up on this...

Went to court having not received disclosure (and was not organized enough to apply for a stay), so the trial was adjourned. They photocopied the officer's ticket and notes and provided a log sheet from the plane. I've sent another request for the rest of the disclosure items.

So here's my question -- can an officer amend the ticket after he provides me with a copy? My version is all typed with an "X" in the Witness "No" box and no Code (blank). His photocopied version adds a handwritten "X" in the Witness "Yes" box with a badge number above and an "A" in the Code box. The badge number is likely from the officer in the plane.

Is this legit or can I get off on a technicality?

Hate to reply to myself, but I managed to find a smilar incident in CanLii.

The error was in the date of the ticket, and the officer corrected the original before filing with the court (after giving an unchanged copy to the driver). The ticket was quashed and the appeal was denied.

Question remains -- does this quash apply to all such alterations before trial or just this specific flaw?

pch2004 wrote:Question remains -- does this quash apply to all such alterations before trial or just this specific flaw?

You can try that argument. I think there's a good chance it will work. If no amendment had been made by the officer, then it could be corrected by the court. If the officer amends the ticket before filing, well, you can cite the ruling in the case you quoted, and argue that the ticket must be quashed. Have some backup defences in case that doesn't work, though.

Has anyone used (or heard of using) this defense? And can a JP deny the motion in spite of the case law?

I'm no lawyer, so arguing the legality of amending a notice outside of court worries me a bit, but it seems like a valid argument based on the above decision.

pch2004 wrote:Hate to reply to myself, but I managed to find a smilar incident in CanLii.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/20 ... 13711.html

The error was in the date of the ticket, and the officer corrected the original before filing with the court (after giving an unchanged copy to the driver). The ticket was quashed and the appeal was denied.

Question remains -- does this quash apply to all such alterations before trial or just this specific flaw?

Within that case law, there is another case that the decision was based on....

"In R. v. Wilson, [2001] O.J. No. 4907 at para. 21 Livingstone J. held that "regular on its face" means that the certificate must set out the person commencing the process, the person charged, the statute name and section number, where and when the allegations arose and what the result of a conviction would be."

In the case "R. v. Pawar", the date was missing on the defendants copy, which was one of the items required for "regular on its face".

Would look at all this in the totality, does the offence notice you received meet the "regular on its face" items?

Appreciate the input hwybear...always nice to get a different perspective.

Can I ask -- have you ever modified a ticket after issuing it to the driver? Or, more importantly, have you ever been told that it was OK to do so?

pch2004 wrote:Can I ask -- have you ever modified a ticket after issuing it to the driver? Or, more importantly, have you ever been told that it was OK to do so?

Can you ask? You just did

Right from when I first started, my coach told me to never alter the face once the copy was given to the driver.

If there is an error, it is better to make a notation in my notebook or back of ticket (officer notes area). This leads to being more credible should it go to court. Yes, I made an error, but this is what it was. The prosecutor can then decide to ammend the offence notice before the JP or withdraw the offence for more serious things.

If I look at the offence notice and it is really a huge error (ie: wrote wrong section for charge, wrong short form wording), I will then modify the ticket with a great big "X" in the code box, voiding the ticket. The ticket is then filed. Should the person pay the ticket, the money is returned as the ticket has been "voided".

This is another reason I like to sign the top copy of the ticket and not the carbon copy that is issued to the driver. I check the face, I am satisfied and then sign it, pull it apart and serve (all copies are identical). The other way, pull apart, sign the drivers copy and serve to driver, only to come back sign the top copy noticing a check box error and check it (no malicious intent). But either way of signing is accepted. Other arguement is my method has no original signature on the drivers copy, but merely a carbon copy signature....however my method ensures all copies are identical (including the signature)

pch2004: I didn't see this addressed in this discussion so I'll just state it (if it's not obvious). There are two separate arguments to make.

First (as per paragraph 41 of your case citation) the amendment invalidated the certificate of offence. You will argue the certificate had been improperly amended outside of court in violation of Ont. Reg. 200 s. 15 and is no longer a valid certificate, but is in fact a nullity.

Second, and this is a separate argument should you lose the one above, you will argue that the court should not amend the certficate under s.34 (POA), because it would prejudice you.

Basically he gave you a ticket that stated there were no witnesses. You decided to fight the ticket because there were no witnesses! Now you find out that there are witnesses. This is unfair and affected the decision you made. You came to court ready to argue and SURPRISE there's evidence that you were mislead about. It is unacceptable.

Good luck and good fight!

Thanks to all for the comments. Hwybear -- seems like the case law supports your method (since the amendment is made in court). Personally, I like the idea of a big X in the code box for ALL tickets

Ticketcombat -- thanks for spelling it out. I wouldn't have thought of the second argument. A couple of quick questions -- from reading your site, it doesn't appear that I need to file paperwork for a motion to quash, correct? (just bring it up at arraignment and provide copies of the case) Also, it appears that I won't be getting a response to my "missing items" disclosure requests and so will file for a stay. Do you think it would be better to argue for the quash or the stay first?

Wow...I hate court...

Drove 1.5 hrs to file my stay application yesterday...had my 4F and affidavit prepared. Went to the desk and clerk swore my affidavit. Told her I need to go serve the prosecutor...she says his office is over there, but he's not there. You can make an appointment or try on Monday but no guarantees. He has no secretary and sets his own schedule...so for now, it's just a locked door.

So I ask who receives paperwork for him when he's away. Clerk says that they do. So I ask if I can leave prosecutor's copy with her. She says yes and I leave 2 copies of 4F and sworn affidavit. She stamped my copy with the "Filed -- Provincial Offences Court" stamp.

My question -- normally I would have two stamps on each document (proving that the prosecutor was served). Is my application still valid? Or should I also fax to the prosecutor's office to prove that he has been served? I'll fax to the AG offices once I sort this out.

Fax the 4F to the prosecutor just to be sure.

For anyone who was following this...

I prepared myself for court and had arguments for both quashing the ticket and staying the charge for non-disclosure. As it turns out, one of the officers didn't show...almost anticlimactic, but I'll take it.

I managed to listen to a full trial of the evidence for the aerial surveillance program, so if anyone is interested, I can lend some advice as to the testimony of the officers.

Thanks to all for the help...this board is a GREAT resource, as are the regulars who post here.

We all follow ALL cases that go through here. At least I do. These cases let us know about what had worked for YOU, and then we can draw same lines in similar cases.

pch2004 wrote:I managed to listen to a full trial of the evidence for the aerial surveillance program, so if anyone is interested, I can lend some advice as to the testimony of the officers.

You have a PM

pch2004 wrote:

I managed to listen to a full trial of the evidence for the aerial surveillance program, so if anyone is interested, I can lend some advice as to the testimony of the officers.

Thanks to all for the help...this board is a GREAT resource, as are the regulars who post here.

Sure! Why not post it here.