Castanet

Geez what decade was that? Seen guns drawn but never cocked.

the 80s scariest thing ever.metro police.my buddys say he just jumped out of nowhere,

^^^Really ... what part of Toronto? Only 2 cops folks were afraid of and they were in different divisions at opposite ends of the city.

^^^Really ... what part of Toronto? Only 2 cops folks were afraid of and they were in different divisions at opposite ends of the city.

down town 52 division

Not them - 51 (Executioner) and 23 (Rooster).

i guess that's why i still here to tell the tale

kibbs wrote:where are the charter arguments taken?

Provincial Court.

What charter argument are you making?

kibbs wrote:http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html

11b

Interesting that you make such an argument, yet there's absolutely no record of such a sweeping (and precedent-setting) decision recorded in Canlii.

Care to cite a recorded case?

Care to cite a recorded case?

no ,What is your intent with your line of questions?

Care to cite a recorded case?

kibbs wrote:no ,What is your intent with your line of questions?

Clarification is the first thought. Proof and evidence is the second. Is it expected that everyone that reads all of these postings will accept them as written, without research/verification and without references??

Who is more naive? The sender or the receiver?

kibbs wrote:no ,What is your intent with your line of questions?

Because a BC traffic court is hardly the place for a justice to be hearing and arbitrarily deciding on constitutional issues, particularly in the light that he or she does not have jurisprudence (case law) to guide him or her in such a decision.

If Canlii (and by proxy, the BC Courts Judgement Database) doesn't have anything, that speaks volumes to the credibility of your claim that you've had traffic violations dismissed based on the lack of being tried in a reasonable time.

There's a whole dissertation written up on Canlii about 11b http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/charter_digest/s-11-b.html

Your case would need to meet a large series of tests in order to be considered for a dismissal under 11b. Simply taking 12 months to get a hearing wouldn't cut it.

Your case would need to meet a large series of tests in order to be considered for a dismissal under 11b. Simply taking 12 months to get a hearing wouldn't cut it.

i didnt say the charges were dismissed ,they were stayed

kibbs wrote:i didnt say the charges were dismissed ,they were stayed

Of course you did. Either way, I'm saying that the lack of related jurisprudence in the decisions databases suggests otherwise.

Of course you did. Either way, I'm saying that the lack of related jurisprudence in the decisions databases suggests otherwise

is that yer fancy way of callin me a liar?

kibbs wrote:is that yer fancy way of callin me a liar?

In a word, yes. If you actually have a stayed case based solely on 11b, then post the case number at least.

The acid-test for this is the Morin decision: http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/access_courts/Canada/r_morin.html

There are cases in recent years where 11b has been used in an attempt to stay proceedings. The only ones that appear to be successful are ones where the defendant has otherwise been prejudiced.

Here's a list for your perusal: http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/canlii.php?search=11b+stayed+speeding&id=&startDate=&endDate=

In a word, yes.

i aint no liar .thems fightin words.heres the letter i got from the attorney general'
Dear Sir Madam:
As Crown Council instructed By the Attorney General of British Columbia, For the purposes of Section 579(1) Of the criminal code of Canada .I hereby direct that the proceedings on the within information be stayed.
Yours Truly

Administrative Crown Council