OHTA.ca

After doing some searching and reading here, and over at Ticket Combat, I'm a bit confused on what info I should provide when filing for disclosure. I have read that I shouldn't provide my phone number, to protect myself from potential future hearsay arguments, and get everything in writing. But have also read that Toronto no longer mails out Request for Disclosure packages, or notification for pickup. If I do not provide a contact # how are they supposed to notify me.

Thanks

I think there's mixed opinions on that bit of advice. In my opinion it would be difficult to argue in Court you never received disclosure because you refused to provide your phone number. It can quite rightfully look like a stalling tactic.

what do you mean by "potential hearsay arguments "?

I'm curious to get input from some of the more court experienced users on here regarding this.

For one, there's no information available online regarding anything to do with Toronto's Prosecutors on an official level. A blanket court form is made available on the toronto.ca website which asks for a telephone number, but isn't an adequate defense request and shouldn't be used. Now, why is it that the Prosecutor isn't required by law to use an official method of contacting the defense when it comes to disclosure? And how come it's considered bad that one does not provide a phone number? In my case, I'm not at home often and am not privy to checking voicemail since I receive a lot of "Spam" calls. Giving me notice in writing [as is required by law for a lot of other things] is the best method of reaching me. It just doesn't make sense, especially since as a citizen I have the right to represent myself and be offered full constitutional rights without prejudice. They make it very hard to follow the rules, especially if it's not easily available.

mnstrcck wrote:For one, there's no information available online regarding anything to do with Toronto's Prosecutors on an official level.

A blanket court form is made available on the toronto.ca website which asks for a telephone number, but isn't an adequate defense request and shouldn't be used.

For ease of others, here is the disclosure form you mention

The form still allows people to obtain disclosure/ evidence the crown has. Due to the vast amount/variety of cases the court can't possibly make a disclosure form to satisfy everyone's needs or what they "perceive" is a need.

Now, why is it that the Prosecutor isn't required by law to use an official method of contacting the defense when it comes to disclosure? And how come it's considered bad that one does not provide a phone number?

It appears by the Toronto site that disclosure is "not" mailed out and must be picked up in person, thus the need for a phone # to call you and tell you when it is available....just a guess.

I think the reason traffic courts do things this way (ask for you phone number, want to call you instead of write, won't mail anything out) is because if they didn't do it that way, they simply wouldn't be able to handle the volume of requests that they get for disclosure. I don't think they are violating your right to disclosure by requesting that you provide a phone number or pick it up yourself.

Since you still have the ability to obtain the disclosure you want (albiet not under the conditions you want), I think a court would have a hard time finding your right to disclosure was violated if you refused to pick it up or didn't give them a phone number so they couldn't contact you.

Thanks for the input.

I sent it in before there were any responses to this thread. It made sense to me to fax it in with my phone # on it., so I did.

Re: Potential hearsay arguments... Information obtained based on phone calls, can just end up in testimony as "He said...She said..." with no actual physical proof of what was really said. Having physical written proof of any exchange of information, would outweigh someone's personal recollection.

Novus wrote:Re: Potential hearsay arguments... Information obtained based on phone calls, can just end up in testimony as "He said...She said..." with no actual physical proof of what was really said. Having physical written proof of any exchange of information, would outweigh someone's personal recollection.

That's not quite right. Regardless of whether something is written down, the courts generally prefer the actual oral testimony (which is sworn) over any previous written statements (which are unsworn) when the 2 conflict. Prior inconsistent statements can be used to impeach a witnesses credibility at trail however.

This is not the same as hearsay. Hearsay is evidence given by the person testifying about what another person said. Courts don't like that for the same reason as they don't prefer prior unsworn statements over live sworn testimony - because neither is in accordance with the "best evidence rule", which says that courts should always prefer the best evidence available. Now there are many exceptions to hearsay, but generally the court doesn't want people testifying about others said; the person who said it should be the one who is testifying about it.

Thanks for the clarification.