2. The helmet referred to in section 1 shall conform to the requirements of the, (a) Canadian Standards Association Standard D230 Safety Helmets for Motorcycle Riders and shall bear the monogram of the Canadian Standards Association Testing Laboratories;
(b) Snell Memorial Foundation and shall have affixed thereto the certificate of the Snell Memorial Foundation;
(c) British Standards Institute and shall have affixed thereto the certificate of the British Standards Institute;
(d) United States of America Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218
and shall bear the symbol DOT constituting the manufacturer’s certification of compliance with the standard; or
(e) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No. 22, “Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Protective Helmets and of Their Visors for Drivers and Passengers of Motor Cycles and Mopeds”, and shall have affixed thereto the required international approval mark. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 610, s. 2; O. Reg. 102/12, s. 1.
I think the officer is going after this part - not disputing whether or not the helmet says DOT on the back, but whether there is any corresponding label on the inside that meets the requirements of the U.S. Standard.
We have all heard stories about the DOT stickers being sold separately. How do we know that it's legit unless we look more carefully? As far as I know there is not minimum thickness for an energy-absorbing material on the inside, the officer was likely just measuring so he could describe it in the trial.
My hunch is that if your other equipment was really not up to par, you would have gotten more than one ticket. Best bet is to put off the trial until after 6 months have passed from the date of the traffic stop so those charges can't be laid after the fact.
A Judge won't hear it because it's going to traffic court, not criminal court. Only JP's sit in the Provincial Offences courts. I wouldn't hold your breath on a jury either.