i mean, the panel might come back at me and say something like "we don't have the authority to question the correctness of the officer's report on the legality of the arrest", to which i would agree with them - and ask why the statute forces me to wait for them to finish their toothless report, then.

in canada, the criminal law actually forbids an officer from arresting somebody on a minor offense. there is no concept of reasonable cause, in context; even if he has reasonable cause, he's still supposed to write me a summons. reasonable cause only refers to more serious offenses. now, i reject the premise that he had reasonable cause for the arrest, but the report was incorrect in using that argument in the first place - and the case law is completely explicit about it.

if this is strictly an issue for the courts, then why does the system try so hard to keep me out of them?