Need help regarding disclosure/discovery in Ontario Canada case.

[PapaJohn]

Hey all, OK, I know I had this on my computer at one point but I can not find it for the life of me now. I have also searched all my legal book marks and all the sites I have book marked for all the various Ontario Acts (Ontario Canada) but still can't find it.... I did lose some bookmarks a couple days ago when my son upgraded Firefox without backing up all my bookmarks so it might have been in one of those lost...
Anyhow... What I am looking for is the specific law regarding disclosure. This is the law that stipulates that the Crown Attorney is obligated by law to disclose all evidence against a defendant to the defendant's lawyer.
I know I had the specific act dealing with this at one time because I distinctly remember reading it and quoting it to my lawyer but now I can't find it and I need it urgently... Does anyone know which Ontario Act this is listed in and where I can find it on the web? I am still looking but thought I would post in case someone else can help look and shorten the time to find it...
Thanks in advance.

[olive]

Our system of criminal justice recognizes that individuals have the right to know what the case is against them. As a consequence, they are entitled to review any records or reports that have been made about the allegations that involve them. This is called “disclosure”.
Typically, a defendant will retain a lawyer in advance of the first court date and the lawyer will, through the prosecutor’s office attempt to obtain disclosure and review it with the client. Some times all of the disclosure material is not available by the first attendance. Other times, the client and the lawyer have not been able to meet to review the disclosure. Either way, the court will generally allow the lawyer to attend at the first attendance and adjourn the case for a few weeks to meet with the client with all of the disclosure, and as between lawyer and client, to come to some decision as to what direction the case should take.

After reviewing the disclosure with the client, and giving his legal opinion as to the merit of various options in the case, the client will give the lawyer his instructions on what to do. If the client wants to plead guilty, the lawyer will want to meet with a prosecutor to see what the prosecutor would ask the court to impose as a penalty should the client plead guilty. It is important from the client’s perspective that he is not taken by surprise by the prosecutor’s position on sentence. The defence lawyer and the prosecutor aren’t required to and often don’t agree on what sort of penalty the judge should impose. When they do agree on the penalty they think the judge should impose, it is called a “joint submission”.
If the client wishes to plead guilty, typically this can be done within a week or two of any court date, and possibly even on that date. While the lawyer can appear in court on behalf of the client for many routine court attendances, the client must be in attendance for the guilty plea or for the trial, as the case may be.

It should be noted that if the client pleads guilty, it is the Judge who decides what the appropriate penalty is. The judge will listen to what both the prosecutor and the defence lawyer have to say about the case, and will give a decision. Where the prosecutor and defence lawyer have a “joint submission”, the judge typically will agree with it.

[olive]

The disclosure provision of an investigating officer’s notes are a fundamental part of the disclosure process. The notes, made in the course of the investigation, provide both information and context which any Defence counsel must review to assess and prepare their client’s case. Failure to provide such information is a serious breach of the applicants’ s.7 Charter right to disclosure.

___


Up until 1991 there was no obligation on the prosecution to disclose any part of its case to the defendant. All a defendant was entitled to receive before the trial was a copy of the indictment. In some provinces that was all a defendant did receive. In other provinces, the defendant usually got to see the police report sent to the prosecutor. That report might have included statements of potential witnesses.
In the 1991 case of R. v. Stinchcombe, the Supreme Court of Canada (the SCC) stated that prosecutors should disclose to the defendant all “relevant” or “material” information. As a matter of policy, it elevated the obligation to that of a constitutional requirement as opposed to just a suggested Parliamentary law.
While describing the nature of the disclosure process, it left the details up to up to the rule makers. Those rule makers are the federal Parliament or the superior court trial judges in each province. So far, neither has produced a detailed set of rules.

[olive]

The Supreme Court delineated, in the Stinchcombe case (1991), the legal parameters of a full and complete defence, as guaranteed by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This had the effect of eliminating the legal uncertainty surrounding the disclosure of evidence by the Crown. The Court unanimously affirmed that the Crown had the duty to reveal its evidence to the defence in order that the accused could mount a full and complete defence. This right, which was already recognized by the common law, thereby acquired new vigour, constituting one of the pillars of criminal justice. Rather than being merely voluntary, the disclosure of Crown evidence became obligatory. The duty of disclosure embraced all evidence and all pertinent information. The initial disclosure must take place, moreover, before the accused elects his mode of trial or makes his plea.

[PapaJohn]

Originally Posted by olive

The Supreme Court delineated, in the Stinchcombe case (1991), the legal parameters of a full and complete defence, as guaranteed by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This had the effect of eliminating the legal uncertainty surrounding the disclosure of evidence by the Crown. The Court unanimously affirmed that the Crown had the duty to reveal its evidence to the defence in order that the accused could mount a full and complete defence. This right, which was already recognized by the common law, thereby acquired new vigour, constituting one of the pillars of criminal justice. Rather than being merely voluntary, the disclosure of Crown evidence became obligatory. The duty of disclosure embraced all evidence and all pertinent information. The initial disclosure must take place, moreover, before the accused elects his mode of trial or makes his plea.

AWESOME!!!! Thank you very very much Olive!!!!!! Especially the last part regarding WHEN disclosure must take place. The Crown Attorny, the cop involved, and (dammitall) my own frikin lawyer (now FORMER lawyer) are in very deep, very hot water!!!!!!

Umm Olive could I trouble you for a link to where you got this information and any other information you might have regarding disclosure... I am going to go to the Charter now and bookmark it and print it out for my case but also I might need something that may have a specific time line for disclosure.... The above states before I elect mode of trial or plea but I swear I saw in another statute somewhere something about 30 days prior to the trial date or something like that.
Thanks a million again Olive.... Rest assured I believe you have just assisted in having a corrupt cop fired (along with other evidence I have in my possession that proves he has broken several laws), a crown attorney and a criminal defense attorney disbarred for committing illegal acts.