Many drivers in British Columbia believe that representing themselves in traffic court is a simple way to save money. Some even attempt to use a specific legal “strategy.” That is, waiting until the very last minute to request evidence (disclosure) and then asking for an adjournment. The goal is usually to push the case past the 18-month “unreasonable delay” limit set by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Jordan, hoping the ticket will be thrown out entirely.
However, a recent ruling by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in R. v. Newby, 2025 BCSC 2483, has made it clear that this tactic is likely to fail. Here is why self-representation and manufactured delays are a risky gamble.
The Case of R. v. Newby
Mr. Newby was ticketed for using an electronic device while driving. He disputed the ticket immediately but did not request disclosure at that time. It wasn’t until January 2025, 16 months later and just days before his hearing, that he finally asked for the police officer’s notes.
Because the disclosure arrived only one day before the trial, Mr. Newby was granted an adjournment to review it. He then argued that his Charter rights were violated because the total time to resolve the case had exceeded the 18-month limit.
While a lower court initially agreed with him, the Supreme Court of British Columbia overturned that decision.
Why the Strategy is Bound to Fail
While many people who represent themselves in traffic court, and armchair legal advisors on Reddit and TikTok will tell you to do this, the strategy does not work. The court’s ruling in Newby completely dismantles the “last-minute” strategy.
Unlike in serious criminal cases, the Crown does not have an affirmative duty to provide disclosure for traffic tickets unless the defendant specifically asks for it. The court ruled that your obligation to prepare your case begins the moment you receive the violation ticket, not when you receive a Notice of Hearing months later.
Under the Jordan framework, time is deducted from the 18-month limit if the delay is caused by the defence. The court clarified that inaction or a “passive non-pursuit” of rights, such as failing to ask for disclosure for over a year, counts as defence delay.
Being unrepresented does not excuse you from these rules. The court stated that individuals must take “reasonable steps to ensure that he or she is properly informed and prepared” for their task.
Put simply, if you wait until the last minute to ask for disclosure, the resulting delay is blamed on you, not the system. This effectively resets the 18-month “delay” clock, making it nearly impossible to get your case stayed.
Why Getting a Lawyer is Better
Representing yourself might seem cost-effective, but the legal landscape of traffic court is more complex than it appears. A lawyer knows to request disclosure immediately upon being retained. This ensures that if the Crown does fail to provide evidence, the delay is legitimately blamed on the prosecution, not you.
Modern courts follow a “culture shift” from R. v. Cody, which expects all parties to move cases forward efficiently. A lawyer ensures you are meeting these professional expectations so you don’t lose your Charter protections through simple negligence. If the police refuse to provide notes, a lawyer is in the best position to take the next necessary steps with the court.
Attempting to “manufacture” a delay by being slow to prepare is no longer a viable path to winning a traffic dispute. If you want to protect your driving record, you need a proactive defence, not a passive one.
Think of a court date like a university exam. If you wait until the morning of the test to ask the professor for the reading list, the university isn’t going to cancel the exam because you weren’t ready. They will simply tell you that the syllabus was available the whole time, and any extra time you take to study now is entirely on your own clock.
