Got stopped for what I thought was going to be speeding, officer apparently had other ideas which needless to say surprised the heck out of me since Im positive I was not going over 150.

Ive done a LOT of reading already on here, Ticket Combat and some specific cases on Canlii (need to look up even more) and many other places but I still have some specific questions and some general ones I didnt see answered anywhere.

1. Can I ask to have my trial somewhere in the GTA instead of Kitchener where I got pulled over? I live in Etobicoke, what does someone do if they get pulled over in Windsor? Yikes

2. On my summons on the back it says if I do appear a) the trial may proceed b) might get adjourned. I thought the first appearance was only to schedule a Trial? What should I be expecting this first date (besides a possible deal)? Im quite sure they wont get me a disclosure before then and likely it wont be a complete one but it looks like I have to be ready for trial contrary to lots of advice Ive seen here in other threads?

3. Will I have to enter a plea on this first appearance if the cop shows and the JP/Prosecutor wants to go ahead? Does entering a "plea" work against me in anyway, like an 11A or 11B etc?

4. Lets assume a Trial date gets set, and on that date I am ready for trial and the officer doesnt show, wont they just adjourn rather than drop/withdraw the charges? (I ask this because Ive seen many places where the officer not showing seems like a key factor but I dont get why, if no show why would prosecution not ask for an adjournment? Of course if delay if too long they risk 11B but that is better for them than a straight withdraw?) If they fail to adjourn, (again not sure why) then and only then if trial proceeds at that time charges would be dropped correct due to no witness?

I will most likely be getting council (will know after disclosure but Im counting on getting it at any rate) and will be asking for full disclosure. I will be using the Ticket Combat form as a guideline (though it is missing officer name and badge number which I seen can pose a problem? Maybe I will add that in but see below) and adding a few things I consider to be relevant as well and important for my defense like make and model manual of radar/lidar used etc. Im actually hoping (but not counting on) on them delaying getting me the disclosure and then eventually supplying an inadequate one so I can either file for 11A or 11B as it all unfolds but will cross those bridges only if I get that lucky.

TIA for any help

1) Unfortunately trials must take place in the jurisdiction where the offence occurred. If attending in person is difficult, consider hiring someone to represent you.

2) I've never heard of a trial proceeding on the first date. Even if the Crown was ready, you could easily request an adjournment due to the fact you have no disclosure and can honestly state you need more time to prepare and possibly consult with legal representation.

3) If you're requesting more time to prepare, I don't believe you have to actually enter a plea. If you did, you could always enter a plea of not guilty for now. You can always change your plea at a later time if a plea deal is offered, etc.

4) Typically for more serious charges the Crown will be less willing to simply drop the matter. Chances of withdrawal vs adjournment are somewhat jurisdictional dependent as well, with busier jurisdictions more likely to drop matters due to backlog.

Usually 1st appearance for summons is pretty much same as a regular PON (provincial offence notice) aka ticket, except the difference is that there is no out of court settlement, but rather all done within the court.

You will have the normal options once you arrive:

- plead guilty

- plead guilty with an explanation

- ask for a trial, which will be another court date

Speak to prosecutor and they may/may not offer a resolution as it is the 1st appearance date.

Typically, disclosure is already available from the Crown when a court date is set

Hi guys, sorry for my late thank you here I got the MASTER BOOT VIRUS on my computer and have been fubared for over 2 weeks, finally got it fixed though, so late but thanks Quite a couple of months I'm having I tell ya....

Well I really wanted to wait before filing disclosure (try to help ensure some delay) but at the same time there seemed to be a bit of risk, probably very small, that they could start a trial (as I said mentions it right on Summons) so I filed just to make sure any delays will be on them, not me.

So its a big waiting game, 1st appearance coming in mid October and likely that will set a date for Feb/Mar I am thinking, though I hope they put it for Apr/May....

Once I likely file a few more times and then get a disclosure I'll very likely be back with more questions

Just a couple of notes here for any other unfortunate people who might find themselves in the same boat.

Basically the whole first court date was VERY automated where I went and it went according to the 'norm' from what I have read and hwybear was dead on, at least in this smaller jurisdiction, the Prosecutor had EVERYONE'S disclosure ready for them before the court even started that day, much to my dismay.

There was no arraignment, so I did not have to "plea" to anything, yet.

Basically Prosecutor made an announcement at start that no deals were going to be made and to please line up to speak with them. I got in a line, they handed me disclosure, can't remember what else was said, not much I think that they were going to adjourn it to another date to give me time to meet with them. (This might be slightly different than the norm due to smaller jurisdiction not sure) So it seems you try to make a deal outside of court and then on the next court date you plea to the hopefully lesser charge and they withdraw the original one. (they have meetings every week for people to go and try and make deals, which is my next step).

After that they basically called me up, JP asks if you got your disclosure and they made a new court date to "set a trial" and that was pretty much that. So far, delay is on them, but I get the feeling an 11b is out of the question here judging from a few things including my next date which is Dec so no where near as far off as I hoped. So I have until then to meet with the Crown and see if they offer me a satisfactory deal (some people there said that particular Crown was reasonable).

If I get a deal I can accept, next court date will be the last and I will plea guilty to a lesser charge and forgo my option to have any trial at all. If I don't get a deal I can accept or don't bother going at all, the next court date will be only to "set a trial date" according to what they said and the slip of paper they handed me.

So I'm off to see the wizard...

While preparing some of the 'finer points' here for the Crown and possibly for a trial, I came upon another question while looking up past cases on Canlii but have not found a definitive answer yet.

HWY Traffic ACT 172 (1) as further defined here:

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/e ... 5_e.htm#s3

It breaks out Stunt driving from Race and Contest for the purpose of defining each.

1. Does it matter what the Officer wrote on my summons for the purpose of being charged ie which offence I committed?

2. If it does, for example if on my Summons it says "Did commit the offence of STUNT DRIVING" and then below that "Contrary to HWY TRAFFIC ACT Section 172 (1)", does this mean the definitions for Race and Contest do not apply to me?

This is an important distinction potentially in my case, since the Officer is accusing me of Stunt Driving which has a very different definition than Race or Contest and is important for my defence arguments.

I have to think that the Race definitions do not apply even though they fall under the same Traffic Act since the Officer specifically is accusing me committing the offence of Stunt Driving? Unless these two things are considered one and the same, they fall under the exact same act and use the same number yet have different definitions.

TIA hoping for quick response

HTA 172 (1) is the proper section for the offence of a stunt / race

The Oreg you refer to is simply clarifing what the "definition" of a stunt / race is

Thanks for the quick response Bear, not sure how clear I was in my question.

The main thing I am trying to determine is if Racing and Stunt are considered essentially to be the same thing for the purpose of being charged/accused under the law, since they have very different definitions.

If I am being specifically accused of Stunt Driving, it doesn't seem logical that the Racing definitions would apply to me but maybe I am missing something.

It would seem you are saying since both fall under the same HTA 172 (1) that indeed they would?

I believe its a very generic short form wording that covers all the offences under that section. When your charges are actually read aloud in Court, the specific charge wording could possibly be more detailed as to what the allegation is.

In your case though, wouldnt stunt driving be the correct term anyhow? I thought you were being accused of simply going 50+ over, not actually racing someone.

Well there were also other allegations in Officers notes (not racing, but things that fall under the definition of racing and not stunt) such as

i. driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed

which falls squarely under the "Racing" definition and is not mentioned in the Stunt definition. While you can argue that 150+ IS a marked departure, it makes a huge difference in someone's defence if they are being accused of Stunt Driving and therefore need to defend the allegation of 150+ solely OR whether the racing definitions also apply and then therefore need to raise reasonable doubt about any allegations which also pertain to Racing and fall under that definition in the regulation as well. (In my particular case defending 150+ and creating doubt about it will be much easier than 'marked departure').

I do have the wording the Crown will use (I believe from form given) as it was disclosed to me and like the Summons specifically says "did commit the offence of: Stunt Driving, driving in excess of 50km/hr over the posted limit contrary to sec 172(1)

======

I think I may have found the answer to my own question, it was right in front of me from the beginning and defined in the Raham case, one of the first I looked at of course and finally looked over again after much searching:

RAHAM defining Stunt - [8] The Highway Traffic Act does not define "race", "contest" or "stunt", but instead provides in s. 172(20)(c) that those words may be defined by regulation.

[23] I also accept the Crowns submission that from a grammatical point of view, the insertion of the comma after the word "contest" in s. 172 supports the Crowns interpretation. The placement of the comma suggests that the three prepositional phrases, "in a race or contest", "while performing a stunt" or "on a bet or wager", all modify the verb "drive". The section effectively sets out a list of three ways in which the offensive driving may be committed: see R. v. Brown, 2009 ONCJ 6 (CanLII), 2009 ONCJ 6, at paras. 27-28; R. v. Araujo,2008 ONCJ 507 (CanLII), 2008 ONCJ 507.

[24] While the two arguments advanced by the Crown are persuasive, the interpretative debate is put to rest in favour of the Crown by reference to the French version of s. 172:

Nul ne doit conduire un vehicule automobile sur une voie publique pour y disputer une course ou un concours ou y ex©cuter des manoeuvres p©rilleuses ou pour tenir un pari.

[25] The French version makes it clear that s. 172 sets out three ways in which the offence may be committed, one of which is stunt driving. Stunt driving is defined in s. 3 of the Regulation and includes driving at 50 km per hour or more over the speed limit. The charge as laid against the respondent properly alleged a violation of s. 172.[2]

=======

The defense was arguing the opposite point I am making and lost, trying to say that in order to be found guilty under Stunt Driving, the defendant would have also needed to be found guilty of racing as well (more or less along those lines at least how I interpreted it) Of course that was only one part of that case as most know.

The main thing I am pointing to here is that the Judge agreed with the Crown in that there are three ways in which an offence under s172 can be committed, one of which is Stunt Driving and someone does not need to be Racing to be Stunt Driving. They do not stipulate SEPARATE ways, but that would be the interpretation I think a reasonable person would make, since the judge stipulates that Stunt can be looked at solely on its own definition, though it might be too important of an assumption to make.

Thoughts?

I realize this is getting pretty technical and likely needs the attention of a lawyer, or two, (who I will consult if I don't get a deal) as its getting a little tricky IMO

So I've read somewhere that "threatening" them would be pretty foolish, makes sense to me. Probably Ticket Combat, great site that.

Here's the thing. I got Disclosure, and found some holes that I am quite sure I can raise reasonable doubt with. Will it be enough? That is another story, and pretty hard to answer, so not asking that here, at least for now.

So I'm going to see what the Crown is going to offer. I am sure they have 'blanket offers' for most people, like usually 49 over in lieu of Stunt for example but I imagine they consider some on a case by case as well.

So with that in mind I'm wondering just what do I "give them" to support my side and let them know I have a pretty good defence. The trouble is, if I give them nothing, then it looks like maybe I am "all talk". If I point to where some of the holes/issues are, they now are aware and can build their own counter defence against my ammo.

None of it is cut and dry, otherwise I would not bother going to see them, but its valid stuff and by disclosing it which I don't 'have' to do, I now prepare them if we do go to court.

Anyway I think you see my dilemma here, I want the best deal possible and given the weakness's in their case think they should cut me a decent one, but likely in order to argue for it I have to put out at least a thing or two why.

TIA

I'm just going to update this thread since someone sent me a message about it. I went to the Crown, on my own, and by what the Crown said to me that was a good choice. They offered me a deal without me really saying anything, and it was pretty decent considering what the damn officer had charged me with (3 charges in total, 2 major). I tried to let him know that the officer had NO proof what-so-ever, it was a judgement call from his speedo from many many cars back, and that there were some issues in the disclosure. I did not threaten, of course, I just was hoping he might improve the deal just a little to make my decision to take it a little easier. He never wavered, and made a good counterpoint or two. I contemplated briefly, but knew it was way too risky to try and fight it (and probably pay for a lawyer) and end up with the two big charges at the end, so I took the deal which was 49 over.

The biggest injustice was the suspension and impounding the car, especially considering that this was a judgement call and there was no CONCRETE proof, that is a ridiculous law that should be banished and a violation of people's rights under the Constitution, its also guilty before a chance to prove innocence. I know I did not go over 150, but I was speeding and trying to progress through the traffic as he indicated in his notes. On top of the towing stab in the back, and other fees and fines, the damn insurance companies jack up your rates based on a suspension for something I was not even guilty of (and even if I fought charges and won, the crooked insurance companies would still rape me for the suspension since there is no way to abolish it). Not happy

Not saying I disagree about the vehicle impoundment, but the initial 7 day suspension should NOT impact your insurance rates.

The FSCO oversees insurance in Ontario and they state the following:

An administrative lapse or a suspension of a drivers licence is a documented drivers licence lapse for administrative or medical reasons that are not connected to driving offence convictions. Reasons can include non-renewal or expiry of a drivers licence due to a consumers oversight, temporary medical conditions, unpaid parking tickets, outstanding support payments to the Family Responsibility Office or outstanding payment to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund. An Administrative Drivers Licence Suspension (ADLS) is also considered an administrative lapse because there is no driving offence conviction connected with the suspension. The new policy is to ensure that future rating of short term administrative lapse or suspension of a drivers licence is supported by actuarial evidence.

Now this was written prior to stunt driving legislation, but the 7 day suspension is considered an administrative suspension as per the HTA. It's not the result of any conviction, so you should be able to fight any attempt by your insurance to increase your rates.

Stanton wrote:

Not saying I disagree about the vehicle impoundment, but the initial 7 day suspension should NOT impact your insurance rates.

The FSCO oversees insurance in Ontario and they state the following:

An administrative lapse or a suspension of a drivers licence is a documented drivers licence lapse for administrative or medical reasons that are not connected to driving offence convictions. Reasons can include non-renewal or expiry of a drivers licence due to a consumers oversight, temporary medical conditions, unpaid parking tickets, outstanding support payments to the Family Responsibility Office or outstanding payment to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund. An Administrative Drivers Licence Suspension (ADLS) is also considered an administrative lapse because there is no driving offence conviction connected with the suspension. The new policy is to ensure that future rating of short term administrative lapse or suspension of a drivers licence is supported by actuarial evidence.

Now this was written prior to stunt driving legislation, but the 7 day suspension is considered an administrative suspension as per the HTA. It's not the result of any conviction, so you should be able to fight any attempt by your insurance to increase your rates.

Hi Stanton, thanks for the post. I do remember you or someone mentioning this before and think I saved it in my notes somewhere. It seems like it might be in that slightly grey area (surprise) again.

Technically the reason my license was suspended was in connection to a driving offence, trouble is NOT an offence or conviction to the original allegation to which suspension was given. The reason for my suspension (Stunt) is pretty far removed from other legit reasons in their definition.

Had I took my chances in court and been found guilty, I wonder if this now satisfies the definition, since I would have been convicted at that point and now the suspension IS connected to the conviction (after the fact, however)? Clearly, had I gone to court and BEAT the charges, it would be extremely unfair and injust to have the Insurance company penalize me for a suspension to something I was not guilty of. (not that they care, though... $$$)

This sentence "An Administrative Drivers Licence Suspension (ADLS) is also considered an administrative lapse because there is no driving offence conviction connected with the suspension" attempts to make it clear however, that unless a conviction is directly connected, it should not count against you. In my case I was convicted, but convicted of speeding and not Stunt, and I think technically the suspension was given to me for "potential" Stunt Driving, again its this guilty before a chance to prove innocence issue. (at least if there was a radar reading of something like 160 that is somewhat concrete, but of course could still be subject to error. In the case of someone drinking, it makes PERFECT sense to suspend license and impound car if no else can drive when the guy blows to far over the limit since there is concrete evidence and he is clearly a danger ). It is a shame it is not stated as you put it, it is not the result of any conviction, this would have been much more clear and in conjunction with their bit about evidence would have avoided most grey areas I think, since the suspension is the result of conviction, and not the other way around. The bit about evidence might just be my leg to stand on should I have to argue it.

I called a Broker to see about changing Insurance companies, and they did find me a cheaper rate based on info I gave, about 25/month cheaper. I was ready to change, and then he ran an abstract and gave me sh*t for not disclosing the suspension (so its on my abstract). I told him I was informed by more than one party that a temp suspension would not affect my Insurance and this is why I never mentioned it. He said the company that he quoted me would now no longer insure me due to "non-disclosure", and then proceeded to quote me with a different company an amount about 3 times more due to the suspension!

At this point I was sheeting bricks, and was worried my current company would discover this suspension and proceed to abuse me (they did see the speeding charge and raised me rates already) but my renewal has passed so it seems they either didn't see it (unlikely) or realize it is administrative and am not bending me over for it.

Thanks again. Should my current company try using suspension I will try to fight it for sure.

Well here we go again (Insurance scam/saga continues).

So I got very careless with my papers at home and somehow lost my renewal or never got it, and a few months ago I got pulled over after I pulled in front of an officer, not speeding, seatbelt on, confident I was 'in the clear'. I asked him what was up, not speeding etc and he says my sticker is expired. I'm like, "no can't be, I am sure I renewed it", which I was, but sadly he was right, and it was about 5 months since my birthday had passed, damn it!!!!!

After my pleading ignorance, he still gave me the ticket and ensured me it would not affect my insurance and its "no big deal", yeah right, guess he was low on quota. Truth is though, it really shouldn't count since it is NOT a moving violation, you could get this ticket parked in a public lot, but whatever Insurance companies are truly crooks.

So I have 2 fast questions about this, the Stunt charge was July 2011 and was withdrawn by Crown in deal and instead I was charged with speeding, can't remember when but let's say Feb 2012.

Probably dumb questions but here they are:

1. Does this speeding charge go on record/abstract with July 2011 date or Feb 2012 date?

2. I went to see Crown recently about the sticker ticket for early resolution, long after paying for the sticker the same day I got ticket, and showed this to them. They were only willing to reduce the fine sadly, to which I did not accept since I could less about the fine I am much more concerned over the Insurance reaming that will come. So again, I am worried about dates here as the speeding is still on record. I got this ticket in Feb 2013, this time if I am found GUILTY of original charge in trial in Oct 2013, which date goes on record/abstract?

Thanks in advance, I am going to really have to drive on eggshells and hope I don't do anything else stupid until at least the first speeding is gone.