Important info about many of the alleged traffic offenses being issued in Winnipeg including some new information

Sept 13 2016 – Kevin Yaworski – WiseUpWinnipeg – http://wp.me/p1fJaD-pZ
Important info about many of the alleged traffic offenses being issued in Winnipeg including some new information about contesting unfair or unlawful tickets, delay motions (charter 11b – unreasonable delay), discovery package (disclosure) and more.

Lets work together to stop the mistreatment of the public, and misuse of public funds, valuable justice system resources and related misuse.

Finally more and more people have stopped accepting false and misleading info being fed to them by senior people with ACS, G4S via some of our elected and appointed officials and senior staff at WPS, WPA, City Hall and the Province.

Their focus and efforts need to be redirected ftom trying to collect more of your hard earned and taxed the heck out of already money to where they spent only what is actually needed. Many of you are at or past the boiling point when seeing how much the public is paying some of our leaders to manage the City, Province and some of the SOA’s or Crown corps on their behalf and the huge impacts their focus on $afety revenue and other unfair or unlawful taxation / revenue at any cost is having.

Here is another must read if you want to learn more about this and contest unfair or illegal tickets which will help others see the facts and stop taking these $afety meds.

More and more are getting informed that the vast majority of up to 300k traffic and parking offenses being issued in Winnipeg every year have been shown to be unfair or unlawful due to breach of the HTA or other legislation: policy or bylaw requirements, missing; confusing; contradicting or improperly installed signs, artificially reduced $peed limits by city council, city controlled and dangerously $hort amber time especially for higher speed intersections and some other intersections, other deficient engineering, wrong offense code and other issues.

These artificially reduced limits and amber times, missing signs and other engineering deficiencies are not compliant with national engineering standards created to better protect the public.

These deficiencies are against recommendations from some city engineers and reports, against the law in Ontario and elsewhere and in many documented cases being created or ignored in Winnipeg by or with direction from Transport Mgr Luis Escobar, Deputy Mayor; PW chair; Counc. Janice Lukes, COO Michael Jack and other senior officials at the City and the Province.

<!–more

–>

There is also known accuracy issues of radar or lidar due to officer or operators not using tripods as per manufactures operating manual, risk of sweeping motion registering higher speeds, devices not calibrated or testing correctly and other issues. More info in the pinned post.
It has been discovered that the Crown has not been sending a complete discovery package for some traffic offenses when the accused pleads not guilty. In some cases only a copy of the offense notice and document with trial date, time and court room sent.
Not sure if this is standard practice just for Officer issued ticket but anyone contesting should ask for at least the following if they do not get it within 30 days of their trial. You can also request it from the Crown in advance if you want more time to prepare. Your can request your matter be dealt with sooner but it may be an eve court. If you get the disclosure in less than 30 days of your trial you can ask for adjournment for more time to prepare if you need to.
** More info on this and how to contact the Crown Attorney assigned to your trial can be found in the WiseUpWinnipeg pinned post
– Officer or ACS “designated” Peace Officer / Operator notes including lidar or radar device used and other info
– Diagram (including where in the zone they setup, where signs located etc… e.g. school zone or construction zone, designated construction zone, school zone or reduced speed school zone),
– Certificates of calibration and testing for radar or lidar device.
– For ACS Operator notes it should list where they were deployed including meters from the end of the zone targeting and other info (see separate post with example from grant @ thurso).
You can also request the training and operating manuals from ACS and or the radar or lidar devices being used. The Crown may respond with this.
“The documents you are requesting are third party documents. Therefore, the
crown is not required to disclose them. The proper mechanism for
obtaining these documents would be to file an O’Connor motion with the courts.”
If any one is familiar with this process please advise or knows where to obtain either of these. The operating manuals maybe available from the manufacture.
The photos in this post are an example of Officer notes and diagram from a WPS Officer issued speeding offense (95-1) for 53k in a 30k. This was in an reduced speed school zone on Meadowood (artificially reduced as mentioned above).
Initially the Crown only sent a copy of the ticket and trial date info. After requesting the above the notes and diagram were sent but when asked why no certificates of calibration and testing for the lidar device listed on the notes was told by the Crown that the test info was on the notes (just device S/N and time) and that the officer will be in attendence before the trial starts to discuss or at trial..
When this alleged offense issued two WPS officers where observed in two unmarked cars and tag teaming (one officer already pulled someone over). It appeared they were targetting the end of the zone with no kids present. Ticket says 1:48 pm. It was on a wide open road with no parked cars or obstructed view. The officers were not using tripods. Officers notes list Ultra Lite LTI 2/20 100 LR which has the known issues mentioned above.
This alleged offense issued on Mar 15 2015 and trial date set after pleading not guilty was Sept 20 2016 which is over 18 months after and beyond the period of time deemed unreasonable which is 4-6 months or more from R vs. Grant (supported by R v. Askov) (MPPC) or 6 months or more from R vs Segodnia (MBPC).
The Crown is appealing Grant but it is not being heard till Feb 2017. This appears to be a stall tactic by the Province to try and salvage as much $afety revenue as they can. The Crown has stepped up its half off fine to change plea that they have been using for over a year. They now directing admin staff including some from more important courts to call some of the people who plead not guilty to ask if they know their options on the back of the ticket (incl. payment options) and if needed offer 15 min meeting with Crown Attorneys (redirected from higher courts?) where they are sometimes mislead and offered plea deal or sometimes dismiss tickets if known issue.
** Based on track record when the Province forced to stay any remaining tickets due to unreasonable delay they will try and not refund the ones already paid in good faith. The City and Province have proven this twice with unlawful Construction Zone and KYZ tickets. Todd Dube of WiseUpWinnipeg along with Lawyers contested a construction zone ticket and a KYZ ticket but the Crown stayed or decided to no longer opose the appeal which equated to admitting the ticket unlawful but avoided the decision. The MBQB even refered to the City as “ducking out”. This along with FIPPA request results caused them to stay outstanding tickets like these. The Province stopped enforcing or collecting on unpaid tickets like these. It involved $ Millions worth of tickets but in both cases and in another similar they refused to refund tickets paid in good faith the silently ammended legislation to address. Court action with another stay lead to the Province no longer enforcing in Designated Construction Zones (DCZ) this year but is still trying to collect off previous DCZ tickets issued unlawfully. Stay tuned as more news to come about this soon!
When some of the accused have raised the unreasonable delay issue in Provincial Summary Convictions Court aka Traffic, Parking or Kangaroo Court they have been told they need to file an application for delay motion at least 30 days in advance even though the recent R. vs Jordan (SCC) which stated if the crown delayed more than 18 months for criminal matters it is considered unreasonably and the courts are to presume the accused prejudiced. These are simple traffic matters.
WiseUpWinnipeg is testing Jordan with a simple traffic matter. It should follow the above 2 MBPC decisions but in many cases like the above there is more than 18 months delay anyways). A Justice / Judge today said Jordan is still in the transition phase so the Court (Justice) and Crown may use or rely on the previous SCC decision (R. v. Morin). The Crown may use what ever one suits them better when opposing the delay motion but accused can do the same and the Justice should consider how each is applied when making their decision.

If this test is successful it will be a big media story and should force them to stay all traffic offenses unreasonably delayed by 4 – 6 months or more. If not then we need to test once the transition period is over (not sure how long that is) ** The hearing is coming up soon so Stay Tuned!

When you file the application a hearing is scheduled with a Judge (e.g.at 408 York) to see if the delay motion will be heard and if they agree it is scheduled (if the application meets all the requirements why not deal with it at once? seems like a waste of valuable Justices and Court time and other court resources).
For more info on filing an application for delay motion see the WiseUpWinnipeg pinned post.