OHTA.ca

My 78 year old Mother got a ticket at 8am on March 31/09 as the morning sun was in her eyes and she (as well, many others), didnt see the sign ahead-"No straight throughway (between 7-9am Mon to Fri". (All english Sign might I add) at Dundas & Shaw. (**Proceed Contrary Sign Intersection -HTA-144(9).

4 months prior to her court date in November, I requested disclosure 3 times prior to her original court date in November/09. We didnt recieve no disclosure until the day of the trial in November/ 09, so I had to set a new trial date so to give me time to review disclosure, But what they provided to me was not complete disclosure, readable or photo-copied correctly, so I had to request disclosure again for the 4th time.

Last week I recieved 2nd disclosure from Prosecutors office, however this time it was what they originally gave me, but again, incomplete as I originally requested disclosure, using exactly whats on the ticket combat disclosure request form, asking for typed notes, witness statments, and all other important information to defend her on this charge, etc.. all I got from them was a small drawn map showing where the intersection was and where cop was and a somewhat readable copy of her ticket..

Thats all disclosure I got..after requesting disclosure 5 times previously --and it's still incomplete from what ticket combat site says I need to recieve, to allow me to defend my mom.(ie: No witness statments, copy of back of ticket, statments she gave(if any),no by laws, pictures, typed copy of officer's notes, etc..)

Should I be requesting disclosure again--6th time?? OR is it too late already? as they cant prepare it all within 5 weeks as we're going on Christmas break now aren't they?

My Mom's court date is in 4-1/2 weeks in January 2010, and everytime I requested disclosure I'm told we wont have nothing ready for 8-10 weeks..

I was going to defende her case as the sign was all in english and I have read here, that the French Service Language Act stated this sign was illegal so with my evidence I've collected, I should win.. as we are in a French Service Language Act area of Ontario that should be using BOTH French and English Signs..

What does anyone think of this? Think It will be successful?

I think I have quite alot of evidence proving this.. but without complete disclosure, what should I do now??

Also-- Should I file a B-11 Motion as original trial date was set within 8 months of ticket, then I had to set another trial date set in January 2010, to allow me to review what disclosure they provided to me, which was and is still incomplete.?

Did you request the adjournment to "review" the disclosure? If so... unfortunately that "stopped the clock" for an 11B motion. If the JP granted the adjournment because the Crown had failed to provide the disclosure, then the clock is still ticking and 11B might work.

Incomplete disclosure - see if that's enough to stay the charge. Five requests is more than enough. As far as what the courts consider acceptable, for this offence they'd need to give you the officer's notes (for sure) and the by-law (maybe). Notes: If they are illegible, then you can ask for them to be typed. You'd probably have to get the JP to order them typed if that's the case, but if you specifically told the Crown "I can't read these notes, I need them typed" then that might show that indeed disclosure was not complete.

The by-law issue... there is a court case that says the existence of the sign is prima facie evidence of the existence of the by-law. However, you might be interested in this thread, if you haven't seen it already:

Look for member "case law" post of a newspaper article and the discussion about it, good example of why the sign alone should not be sufficient. How do we know that a sign is valid, and the by-law has not been revoked or amended, if the by-law is not provided? How do we know it was not meant to be removed? How do we know that it was put in place properly at all if the by-law is not provided? I'd make the argument that without the by-law, we have no proof that the sign was valid, so disclosure is incomplete. Will it work? I don't know. Maybe. Don't be afraid to try it.

French Language Services Act... hard to say. Some JPs accept bilingual argument and some do not. Again, ticketcombat's website provides the statements needed for the JP if you're going to use that route. The R. v. Myers case was ruled on by a JP and it is not binding on any other court in Ontario. See what happens.

Well, I believe the JP granted the adjournment because the Crown had failed to provide the disclosure. I told the Judge that I requested disclosure 3 times prior to the trial date, previously in the past 3 months and have never received anything back, as without disclosure; I have no idea how to defend my mother and make full answer to the charge.

So upon receiving disclosure, I' would need time to review it so I could try to make full answer and prepare a defence for my Mother..

The Judge asked the prosecutor why I didnt receive disclosure and she said, she can give me a copy of what the officer has on that day we first appeared in court.

The Judge said he would order disclosure to be given to me today, and he would adjourn court for 2 months so I could review and prepare a defence and asked the officer what day was good for him to reappear. He stated late January 2010.

We waited 2 1/2 hours for the officer to come back to the courtroom to give me what I was expecting to receive, but he never showed, so I went through old city hall looking for him. Finally ended up at basement lever at P.O.A office, where they gave me what the officer should have. But what the officer photo copied for me for my disclosure request after court, was an unreadable, lightly photocopy of only the bottom 1/2 of the front of the ticket, and a copy of a hand drawn map, I think showing me where he was on the street, and where my mom came from when he saw her travel through a no straight throughway sign-between 7am -9am Mon - Fri.(That sign was an all English sign NO mention of any French language on the sign, so it doesnt comply with the French service language act)

Now because I received only the bottom 1/2 portion of the front part of the ticket and a light copy of this hand drawn map, that I couldn't read or understand, within 2 days of the first court appearance, I requested complete disclosure again, using ticket combats Disclosure Request form as previously used when I made my requests.

I again asked for:

1) A full copy of the officers notes and clarification of the charge.

2) A clear copy of both sides of the ticket,

3) A typed version of the officers hand written notes

4) Any statement made by defendant

5) Witness and witness will say statements.

6) a clear copy of any photographs and a clear copy of hand drawn maps with a typed explanation of what the map details were.

7) Any other information in the Crowns possession whether it incriminates or exonerates the defendant

Within 1 month, in early December/09, what I received was basically exactly what I got the first time when we went to the first court appearance, but the photocopy of the ticket this time, was a full darker copy of the complete front of the ticket, but again the writing on ticket was light and it barely is readable. I also got another copy of the hand drawn map but darker this time, and the notes or words on the map, were abbreviated but still look like chicken scratches. And I dont fully understand the map.. But I kind of get the idea what he means by what he wrote.

Thats all I received after my 4th request for disclosure.

No other information. No Bylaws stating why the sign was erected. No typed notes. Nothing else!

1-1/2 weeks after I received this 2nd (same) disclosure that I requested, I sent another fax requesting disclosure again for the 5th time early this week. However my Mom's 2nd court appearance is in 33 days and were going into Christmas Holidays.

I was going to use the French Service Language Act defence because I have the evidence that according to the FSLA, (That I have a copy of as well as what signage should look like), the sign was not legal as it didnt have both French and English. It only had English and I have pictures to prove that to.

Each disclosure request always included the same material to be given to me as stated above -1-7.

The officer did show for the first court date, so I suspect he will show for the second court date, as he alone set that date because he was available according to his schedule.

I really dont want to have to set yet another trial date because my mother is 78 years old and is handicap and cant keep walking up and down the courthouse steps as she walks with 2 canes for support...

Does anyone have any Ideas?

I think that was all the disclosure you get. So stop asking for disclosure and prepare for the trial, line up all possible defenses and pull the trigger one by one.

Don't give up on the the cop not showing up at the 2nd trial, my case proved that the cop did not show up at the 2nd trial date which was picked by him. (be prepared, don't take the deal from the Crown if the cop don't show up at the second trial).

In my opinion, improper disclosure is weak defense in this case, 11b is very slim, FLSA is a maybe, you may loose if you go to trial.

Your mother does not need to be at the trial, you can represent her unless she wanted to be present and to testify. If she wants to attend the trial but has difficult walking in the snow cold day as a handicap, you can ask to delay the trial especially if the cop does show up.

Well Win or Loose, Im going to make an attempt to do everything I can for my mother as she's not entirely sure exactly what happened 10 months ago, cause she was shocked and dismayed, she even got a ticket for "supposedly going straight through a green light one morning while in visiting from another city north of Toronto.

So of course I have to show I'm making a "reasonable attempt" to get all the disclosure Im entitled to see, as Im preparing to go to trial with everything I have gathered for a defence, however slim or shakey anyone thinks it might be..

Ive won with less when its came defending the few tickets I received.

Im hoping the defence; 0.5 from here + 0.5 from there + 0.4 from over there "defence" may equal = ticket thrown out ???.

After all, my mom's on limited pension and of course feels its all a BIG money grab from Toronto..

She wants to know why,.. " Why cant you go straight through south, on a 4 way, all way, side street, only between 7 am -9am at a busy intersection showing her a green light?

The city should have maybe had a green arrow light showing only left turns available as you busy looking at the pedestrians running out in front of you, the bikes around you and other cars?? I see what she means cause when I went to scene, I see it's a good possibility the sun would have been in most all the motorists eyes that time of morning.

screwed-by-guys_in-blue wrote:She wants to know why,.. " Why cant you go straight through south, on a 4 way, all way, side street, only between 7 am -9am at a busy intersection showing her a green light? .

saw this on google maps... makes me curious too.

Correct question!!! I want to ask and have been, but nobody can give me an answer as the way the road is there's a grassy island seperating the north from south.. so it feasable, possible and made for that exact purpose.. Why must everyone be required to make a left or right onto Dundas, causing even more traffic snarled, because of this STUPID

money grab by Toronto?? There are many TTC street cars travelling that Dundas street, & near impossible to make any headway on Dundas during rush ours.. and we cant drive straight to queen street or lakeshore because I guess we need to save the concrete road???

Thanks hwybear for your google investigation, as I did the same and saw exactly that.

WHY?

screwed-by-guys_in-blue wrote:Thanks hwybear for your google investigation, as I did the same and saw exactly that.

WHY?

but should know police are there as a cruiser is in the photo

wondering if it is signed that way due to traffic volume in the morning? Such as that the oncoming traffic must only turn left/right as going straight thru would be onto the one-way traffic (where your mother came from)

but should know police are there as a cruiser is in the photo

wondering if it is signed that way due to traffic volume in the morning? Such as that the oncoming traffic must only turn left/right as going straight thru would be onto the one-way traffic (where your mother came from)[/quote]

I really couldnt say.. As there is a long grassy island seperating North bound from south bound traffic, and you can make a right and a left from east & west bound Dundas onto the Shaw street to go south from Dundas St, but you cant travel str8 through when already On Shaw going south..

What I saw was confused traffic congestion because the east & westbound traffic along Dundas, that were making a left or right to travel south onto Shaw, were blocking the cars that HAD to make a left onto Dundas from shaw... so vehicles CAN travel south on Shaw below Dundas between 7-9am.. But they can't continue south ON Shaw once they reached Dundas..

It was really confusing when I went to look at the situation! and people were still travelling south past Dundas on Shaw and then getting tickets so they weren't fully aware what they got a ticket for going straight was for, but you can make a left or right onto Shaw from Dundas..?? again I say Big Money Grab to unsespecting & confused drivers.

Where is that congestion from? That may be why the sign is there. If Shaw is becoming congested between 7-9 AM, southbound traffic approaching Dundas essenially only has a single lane; while right-turning vehicles can squeeze past, a car waiting to proceed straight onto Shaw would have to wait there (don't block the box!) and block both straight and left-turning vehicles. After the line-up is three or four vehicles deep, right-turning vehicles are blocked as well.

I see the same setup at Islington station. Going into the TTC parking lot, a single-lane street at the entrance is blocked from proceeding straight into the lot entrance, while line-ups regularly spill out onto Bloor St. - a multi-lane road.

Well travelling south on Shaw which is a south bound one way street, from 7 - 9am you need to either turn left onto congested Dundas going east or turn right onto Dundas West as you can not travel more South on Shaw straight through Dundas St towards Queen St.

The Vehicles travelling North on Shaw need to either turn Right going East Or Turn left going west, as at Dundas, you no longer can travel any further North on Shaw as then its a one way-South Street.

So I saw the congestion stemmed from Dundas East, as its rush hour and sometimes due to StreetCars or other cars on Dundsas East its kind of bottle necked because both Shaw North and Shaw south need to ALL turn either Right OR Left onto Dundas asbetween 7 - 9am or 4-6pm, you cant alleviate any bottleneck by continuing travelling South on shaw below Dundas as during the morning, anyway.. most cars are turning left into the city from SHaw St.

I understand some northbound cars on Shaw turn left (west) on Dundas, but northbound Shaw STreet cars do also turn right as well going east.

So South bound Shaw must turn east between 7-9am too, and Dundas at Rush hour IS busier going east mostly because there usually are more eastbound Dundas vehicles travelling into the city for work.

But if Shaw Street allowed Southbound vehicles to continue travelling South towards Queen St it would help save the congestion eastbound dundas street as then vehicles have a choice to continue towards Queen or lakeshore, where people do need to go also.

(If any of this makes sense.. ) But it depends on where exactly people are traveling to in the city..

The Need to turn right or left for Shaw southbound AND northbound vehicles, between 7 -9am & 4 - 6pm forces cars onto Dundas street, where streetcars, excess snow people crosssing at that corner, and the already large amounts of cars, going to & from work makes no sense when the availability to travel south does exist. as you no longer can go any further northbound on Shaw Street, because Shaw southbound is a one way.

We finally had 'our day in court" I'll try to be brief..

My mom and I went to defend her on this charge. Arrived early to speak with prosecurtor. She was arrogant, rude and refused any negotiations, even after I showed her a huge amount of my evidence in my mom's favor.

1) French Language Service Act-stating all english only signs are invalid in Toronto.

2) Pictures of all the english only signs in area of where mom was ticketed.

3) All 5 disclosure requests, but only 1 answered disclosure request that was missing 1/2 the information as it was unreadable, lightly copied, and still missing 1/2 of the information I requested before given to us.

4) No bylaw given to us showing WHY the sign was put in place to prove sign was valid in disclosure.

Prosecutors attitude was.. SO?

My Mom either plea Guilty and pay $110.00 then she MIGHT save 2 demerits (was originally told it was a 3 demerit offence) but up to judge to decide.

We sat from 9 AM til 1030 only then to find without notice, somehow Moms trial was changed to 1:30pm that day from 9am (what we were originally told).

Went back at 130pm.

Sat there until 230pm when Mom was called up.

I explained to judge all my evidence, as by then everything seemed so informal and we were the only ones left in courtroom, but I still stood on proceedure, calling Judge "your worship and following court protocol.

The judge asked me 3 times. Was I a lawyer or para-legal?

as i was not, I told him my mom is on small old age pension and can not afford a lawyer's bill and then he asked (demanded to know )where did I get this information to defend my mom on?

I told him thru alot of research on FSLA defense, and 1 or 2 "free 30 minuts legal advice, as well online and other court documents I've read ..etc ..

Prosecutor had to tell judge, on 1 of my disclosure requests, I forgot to remove the "ticketcombat" website address from bottom of request.

After that it all went crazy.

I was told to conference with cop to verbally get the rest of what he did not provide us as disclosure that was still missing 1/2 the informaton, (Map of where he was (location) and 1/2 of the copy of ticket). As That is ALL The disclosure I can expect to recieve at any time.

He even went on to say "Im lucky to have even recieved that much, as Traffic court does NOT give out disclosure!! Written upo, typed or otherwise!!

The original Ticket given to my mom was the ONLY disclosure they see fit to provide-Thats IT!! Thats ALL!!

IF I recieved what I did as disclosure, Im lucky at that, because to begin with, giving us a bylaw to state the sign was in place legally is absurd!!

If I want that information, I myself should find it, as its not up to the court OR Prosecutors office to provide it! Then went on to say I should once again talk to prosecutor and see about a plea to limit amount of ticket or demerits deducted.

I tried to explain she wouldnt hear us, nor was she wanting to help us. Her attitude was plea Guilty or feel her wrath!

Then he took a 20 minute recess so we again can speak with prosecutor, who was still acting like a wicked witch.

The Prosecutor then told me..

"If I intend to continue defending my mom on the evidence I have today, SHE will adjourn proceedings until a later date so she can file a motion to exclude me as my moms defender. meaning I wouldnt be allowed into the courtroom on the new date, so my 80 year old mom (who can't afford a lawyer) will have to hire a lawyer to defend her or plea guilty now and get this over _NOW!.

As "All the "so called evedince I had was incorrect and I was taking up precious court time and expense on this frivilous thinking that the French Service Languaga Act was any sort of a defense in traffic court or I was to expect more disclosure than what I recieved.."

Now, I have successfully defended myself 3 times in the past 10 years in traffice court, so I do know how to folow court protocol.

But what I experianced that day, as I see it, was a total miscarrage of justice!

They had my mom so terrified she would loose her license because she's now 80 years old, they in fact forced her to admit guilt or go hire an expensive lawyer to defend her, and she'd still loose.

I told prosecutor of my moms small pension would cause her severe hardship, and she finally said she would try and make sure NO demerit points were deducted if she pleaded guilt now. (By then I saw the Judge peering out of his small room he enters by, so I know he heard most everything I was discussing with Prosecutor.

So, when the court finally came back.. I was asked to sit quietly in the empty courtroom as I wont be defending my Mother. My mom then had to plea guilty to going thru, down a thruway, between 7-9am when in fact you can only turn right or left and not go straight when light was green, so she can save the demerits.

When judge asked if there was anything she's like to add, she asked again, if the court could consider reducing the fine from $110.00 and stressed again to judge of he limited pension.

The Judge found my Mother guilty. Then in his ruling he dismissed the charge against her without pregidous.

So yes, we did get our day in court and eventually got what we were seeking for my mom.. but in turn the judge said to me at the end, he admires me for standing up for my mom, but said I shouldnt ever take what I read off some website as truth when it comes to the law.

Because most likely I'm going to be wrong in my assessment of what I read.

Now Ive used ticketcombat website previousley a few times to successful out comes.

So I am shocked that this was allowed to have taken place in court, and I wasnt even allowed to defend my Mom on the grounds of everything I had previously found to be truthful and honest about:

1) the FLSA and english only signs

2) People are NOT allowed disclosure to defend themselves in traffic court as the ticket given is ALL the disclosure needed??

All because I wasn't a Lawyer or Para-Legal.

If the judge wanted to rule a dismissal in the end... ( I Think because he knew I did have a good defense for her, but he certainly didnt want this trial to go public, so everyone would know about Toronto's illegal signs)

Why did we just go through 1 1/2 hours of this bull where it intimmidated my Mother so much, she was forced to plea against her's and my better judgment.

I did A whole lot of research into FLSA and more defenses, and everything Ive read was, and has been used to success in other trials. But on this day, just because I wasnt a lawyer or Para-legal, invalidated me and everything I said???

OUTRAGEOUS!!

In a court of Canada, thats will ONLY listen to lawyers or Para-Legals, and not the regular guy who cant afford a high priced lawyer.. Where is this judicial system going?? No Rights as you're automatically Guilty... unless you can pay for a hefty lawyers bill

*** On another topic as to the why the sign was in place******

Afterwards I did more research into why the sign was there and its bylaw.

Only beause the Queen Street Mental Health Center (now owned by CAMH) has a 250 year old wall surronding it's property, along the east end of the property (along Shaw Street, south of Queen Street to King St.

The Toronto Historical Society has deemed this a historical landmark in 2005. Thus on petition to Toronto has asked that during Rush Hours 7am-9am and 4pm-6pm Monday - Friday, No vehicles are allowed thru major intersections, southbound on SHaw Street starting at Dundas, so that it limits the amount of vehicles allowed to pass by or near this historical wall, so it limits the amount of vehicles passing by, in case there are accidents that could risk this wall from being hit, in the event an accident should occur.

Thus perserving the remainig historical wall (and an old gatehouse inside,) surrounding the Property, as sometime in 1970's Toronto removed the same wall that continued along the Queen Street, destroying that part of this historical Wall.

But it would have been much easier if the prosecutors office provided me with the bylaw, instead of me looking for it as it took me a day or 3 to find the bylaw and the accompanying documents from the Toronto Historical Society.

(I still say.. NO Matter what!! I'd do all of this again, exactly how I did, in court, as I think, what did happen was a total farce and courtroom circus.

I now believe the prosecutor when she said to me "the Judge, court clerks and her are all like a big family here, that work together daily.

And if it wasn't for the people here (In the courtroom) Toronto would be over run with people who will dilibertly break the law, because they see a small technicaliity in the law. (ie: FSLA)

Ah, the good old trying to scare people away tactic. Saying that the court does not provide disclosure is like saying "you don't have a right to speak your mind", as it is in the charter. Defending a member of your familyfree of charge is the same right.

If those who know about the FLSA loophole and work to convict people despite that fact should instead work on cleaning up their own act and update the signs so that the signs themselves are conformant to the law they uphold.

In any case, congratulations on a hard win!

racer wrote:If those who know about the FLSA loophole and work to convict people despite that fact should instead work on cleaning up their own act and update the signs so that the signs themselves are conformant to the law they uphold.!

HTA OREG 615 (52) a FSLA designated municipality does not have to comply with the FSLA unless that municipality has itself passed a bylaw indicating they will be in compliance.

racer wrote:Ah, the good old trying to scare people away tactic. Saying that the court does not provide disclosure is like saying "you don't have a right to speak your mind", as it is in the charter.

X2

The Prosecutor was engaging in some high-school intimidation tactics. They weren't very good ones, particularly the "we're one big family" one. Basically she was insinuating that the trial would be biased. Where's a tape recorder when you need one?

hwybear wrote:HTA OREG 615 (52) a FSLA designated municipality does not have to comply with the FSLA unless that municipality has itself passed a bylaw indicating they will be in compliance.

To my understanding... that is the way most courts are ruling on this issue right now... I don't believe that any municipality in Ontario has ever fully committed to providing French services, but I could be wrong.