153 In A 100 Zone (Highway 404 Southbound In Richmond Hill)

Here's the story. 3 weeks ago my father in law was driving home at around 4:00am from work. He was pulled over and the OPP Officer who is only 3 days on the job gave him a ticket of 153 in a 100 Zone, towed and impounded his car for 7 days and suspended his license for 7 days.

Here are the problems with this:

My father in law admits to speeding, and knows exactly how fast he was going. He was doing between 118 and 120 kmph - he is dead set that he knows thats how fast he was going as he numerous times saw it on his speedometer

The officer gave him 2 tickets, one for stunt driving and one for speeding. But she never signed any of the two tickets. When the tow truck driver was driving my father in law home, she called him and had him bring my father in law back to the scene where she signed the tickets in black pen

My father in law is a 50 year old man, i've been in the car with him countless times, he never drives at such ridiculous speeds and he knows exactly how fast he was going (118 to 120 kmph) - how could the officer have made such a HUGE mistake? This has caused him great stress, the loss of his vehicle and over 1000.00 in towing fee's, impound fees not to mention loss of work (he's self employed and relies on his van for work)

This officer admitted to being brand new only 3 days on the job, she forgot to sign both of his tickets (had to call him back to sign them) and clearly does not know how to use her radar gun. I have requested full disclosure from the Prosecutors office already about 3 weeks ago and they still have not replied ( I need to send a follow-up )

His court date is coming fast its in 1 month. Here are my questions:

1) What do we do on the court date if we still have no disclosure from the prosecutor office?

2) What should we do about this officers mistakes and inability to properly measure his speed?

3) What other advice can you guys offer for this situation? He can not afford to pay X-Copper, he called for a quote and it was too much money for him.

He's already lossed a lot of time, money and has huge stress over this entire situation. His car should have never been impounded and he should have got a speeding ticket for 20 over. This entire situation is madding and very stressful for him - please help with whatever advice you guys can.

Thank-you for this great website.

What your father-in-law got is probably a summons, so that court date, which I'm assuming is in Newmarket, is only to set a trial date. Probably why you haven't received disclosure yet.

He was given two summons, one for stunt and one for speed because of the Rayham decision. Most officers were writing both while that case was being decided. This way if the stunt was deemed unconstitutional they could always fall back on the speeding. One will be dropped, likely the speeding.

Anyway don't go this alone its a serious charge. Have him pay the money to be represented or at least get a deal to 49 over.

Hmm....I'm concerned about your comment that because someone was 3 days on the job they can't do it properly...3 minutes after I was trained on RADAR I was able to use it properly and have never had a problem with, it's ridiculously simple to use...someone with 3 days on the job has a coach officer watching all their moves so request this officer's notes, info.

People always say the officer was using the radar wrong, but it's like saying that guy was using the light switch wrong...I could teach a ten year old to use in 30 minutes, though the official training is a little more detailed...

Not exactly sure about the signing of the summons, there is some case law on it, but it does change from time to time so def. consult with a pro on this point.

As for saying he never speeds that fast...well we've ALL found ourselves going 20-30 faster than we thought thru sheer inattentiveness...the mere fact that he had checked his speed earlier. Factor in that his speedometer may be off (not a defence)...

Police have historically given drivers 15-20 km/h to account for attention span, speedos etc, but the problem is that drivers know this and drive 120, using their goodwill buffer.

If the speed limit is 100, drive 100, if you drive 120, your speedo is off by 15 and you drift over by 15...voila, goodbye car / licence / good insurance rates.

Get a pro, this can be expensive. And tell him to slow down.

Fear of lawsuits makes all speedos indicate a speed that is a bit lower than the actual speed. The faster you go, the more pronounced it gets. Some are pretty bad (when the speedo on my 95 Jetta is showing 130, I'm really doing 116-117, but when it's showing 60, I'm really doing 55) while others can be a bit tighter (a Kia Rio 5 that I've driven was off by 1-2 km/h at city street speeds and 4-5 at highway speeds).

And I wish all cops had my fellow firebug's tolerance.. Once I got nailed for going 5 over the limit and being uninformed at the time I just paid up, which resulted in a 20% rate hike (b/c I already had a 10km/h over ticket on my record).

You got a 5 over.....

I'll take that one to court on principle alone.

At the time I suffered from demerit disinformation syndrome.. I figured since it didn't involve demerit points, it wouldn't affect my insurance rates and also figured that it wouldn't be worth the special trip out to Sudbury to fight it (the constable was camping on the only road leading up to the campus, at 2am, at a time of the year when the court dates would come up smack in the middle of summer break).

Had I known what I know now, I would have taken it to court.

Thanks guys for all your posts really appreciate it.

FyreStorm: I asked him (my father-in-law) many times, are you "sure" you were going no more than 120, then asked him are you "positive" - each time he replied, "yes I am sure, yes I am positive, I know exactly how fast I was going". He wouldn't lie to me, he's got nothing to gain or loose. I believe him hes not one to make up stories or lie. He admits to speeding but only by 20 over.

The officer was alone, there was no trainer or supervisor with her - she was the only one in the police car. I take your point about the RADAR Gun being simple to operate, but how can the reading be so far off? The reading is off by 34kmph which is too much.... I also know his speedometer works perfectly fine, when we got his car from the impound I followed him home, he was doing the speed limit exactly 60kmph I gauged this by looking at my own speedometer while following him.

So we know his speedometer works properly. I am at a loss with how / what could have caused such a mis-reading to happen. Any ideas what could have caused this?

Secondly, does anyone know about the issue of the officer not signing his tickets and then calling him back to sign them? At the very least it shows lack of due diligence how can we trust she operated the RADAR properly or that something else didn't interfere with it? Clearly something went wrong to get a reading of 154 when he was going max 120.

I don't understand this and would like to get to the bottom of it or at least better understand what could cause such a mistake.

I wouldn't go into court against this charge without professional help. Shop around, see who seems the most professional and willing to tackle the case. The consequences of a conviction are quite steep, namely $2000 in fines and 6 demerit points, possible additional licence suspension and a huge insurance increase.

The thing is, Stunt Driving is a "strict liability" offence and the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that if your father-in-law can demonstrate he took all reasonable care to avoid going 50 km/h or more over the speed limit, he should win, particularly if he's adamant that he was driving 20 km/h over and not 54 over. In fact, Justice Doherty in the decision wrote that "pulling into the passing lane for a few seconds" would be a situation where a defendant could be found not guilty. So there's a chance. If nothing else, as cruzmisl indicated, there may be an opportunity for a plea-bargain.

Thanks again for the pointers guys. Couple of questions.

1) Where can I read information about the info you guys mention? Specifically about the case which determines if this "stunt driving law" is constitutional or not, and as well about the decision relating to proving you were not "stunt driving" to beat that charge?

2) How is it possible that these 2 driving offenses for which he has not had a trial yet are already on his Drivers Abstract? I ordered a copy of his Drivers Abstract to prove he has a clean driving record and both of these charges (Speeding and Stunt Driving) are listed on his abstract. How is this possible?

Lastly, I don't see how this law can be considered constitutional. It allows any officer to suspend anyone's license and impound their car for 7 days with out any appeals process or right to a trial. How "can" this be considered constitutional? With this law in place its "guilty until proven innocent" and allows any officer to be "judge and jury" on the spot - as we can see in this case that's a horrible deplorable law which has cost my father-in-law a great amount of money and stress. I cant imagine that he's the only one who's fallen victim to this. I am referring strictly to the people who were "not" going 50km over the limit but were towed, suspended and impounded in the same way my father-in-law was.

Thanks for your continued support and information. I continue to try and understand this and make some sanity of an insane situation.

The officer was alone, there was no trainer or supervisor with her - she was the only one in the police car. I take your point about the RADAR Gun being simple to operate, but how can the reading be so far off? The reading is off by 34kmph which is too much.... I also know his speedometer works perfectly fine, when we got his car from the impound I followed him home, he was doing the speed limit exactly 60kmph I gauged this by looking at my own speedometer while following him.

In order to prove that the officer made a mistake, you'll have to gather a large amount of information. Weather conditions, road attributes, sources of interference, picture would work well here. Also, you will need a copy of the officers notes, disclosure is where you can get these. If the officer was using a LIDAR gun, there is the possibility of sweep error, google that to find info. You really can not build a case until you have the disclosure info.

I wonder how S.172 will hold up if an officer was proven to have made an error? Not throwing stones, cops are human.

Thanks for your response

Reflections wrote:

I wonder how S.172 will hold up if an officer was proven to have made an error? Not throwing stones, cops are human.

Yes that's my biggest issue with this whole 172 thing. Even if an officer makes a mistake as she did not once, but twice in this case, people (namely my father-in-law) are still made to suffer huge financial loss and health with undo stress. Everything "fair" in this world needs to have "checks and balances" - given the nature of 172 there is nothing here to stop a rogue officer writing nonsense tickets in malice, and likewise there is nothing here to save you if the officer makes a mistake - either-way your car is taken, your license suspended and your forced to pay thousands of dollars. Its not right! How can anyone consider this constitutional? The only entity which should have power like this is a Court, not a brand new officer 3 days on the job or otherwise on the side of the road.

If anyone has answers to my questions 1 and 2 from my last post, i'd really appreciate it. Thanks again

clyrrad wrote:

1) Where can I read information about the info you guys mention? Specifically about the case which determines if this "stunt driving law" is constitutional or not, and as well about the decision relating to proving you were not "stunt driving" to beat that charge?

2) How is it possible that these 2 driving offenses for which he has not had a trial yet are already on his Drivers Abstract? I ordered a copy of his Drivers Abstract to prove he has a clean driving record and both of these charges (Speeding and Stunt Driving) are listed on his abstract. How is this possible?

1. R. v. Raham, 2010. Click on the hyperlink for that case.

2. Don't know about that one, call MTO. A roadside licence suspension can be listed on the abstract as far as I know, but the speeding charge probably shouldn't be there.

As for the up-front penalties being constitutional or not, a roadside licence suspension would hold up as constitutional (has already been ruled as such in drunk driving cases with the ADLS), but the vehicle impoundment has not been thoroughly challenged as of yet. Personally, I think that unless the purpose is to prevent continuation of the offence (ie., drunk driving, drive suspended, drive without insurance, unsafe vehicle), the motorist should be allowed to continue on their way after the ticket is issued. But that's a different matter... Almost no one who gets stopped is going to resume driving exactly the same way they did beforehand...

given the nature of 172 there is nothing here to stop a rogue officer writing nonsense tickets in malice,

Already happened....OPP Mississauga, google it.

Already happened....OPP Mississauga, google it.

And here's the fella:

The OPP is investigating whether a senior officer at the force's Port Credit detachment received kickbacks from tow-truck drivers after motorists had their vehicles impounded, according to towing companies interviewed by police.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/645345

This brand new officer has more than likely been on the job for 8 or mor months.

Pre police college at OPP hq

Police college 13 weeks

Post police college at HQ

OJ training riding with a coach officer

Being on the job 3 day really has no bearing. If you are trained to lay criminal charges you can also lay HTA ones.

Like it or not the officer is trained in his job and acting within those powers. Everyone has to start somewhere.

ops

Thanks guys for those links and information - very helpful and we really appreciate it.

WOW!!!! - thats insane - this is why these laws should not be in place, it gives the officer too much power and that guy was infact writing bogus tickets - WOW - unreal!

Another interesting point I wanted to share with you guys was that when we went to the impound to get back his van, the tow truck driver (who by the way was selected by the OPP Officer) was insisting that we pay in CASH only - so that we could avoid paying taxes!!! We refused, and said we want to pay the taxes, and we want a proper receipt! He gave us a big song and dance about not being able to accept credit cards. He eventually gave in and brought us to a car repair shop where the guy there reluctantly accepted his credit card.

The tow truck driver (who also is the owner of the impound lot) said he had no office and he had no posted rates for impound - he just threw numbers at us. Is he not supposed to have the rates posted? How can he run the credit card thru another "unrelated" business as he was telling us? Are there set rates for impounding the car that you guys are aware of? I want to check if he charged properly for the 7 day impound or if he ripped us off. I have sneaking suspicion that he scammed us and ripped us off.

Why would a "legit" towing business working for the OPP be so instant on us paying CASH and no taxes? Why would he offer for us a way to escape paying taxes if he works under contract for the OPP? Its illegal, its tax evasion - and yet he's working under contract to the OPP? Something is fishy here. My father-in-law also told me the tow truck driver was saying to him "be nice to her (the OPP officer) - she's really nice and she's being watched and its her third day on the job" - how would he know all this? How would he know that she's nice and that she's being watched? She was only 3 days on the job, how could he have such information about her unless he already knew her? Why did the OPP officer choose his specific privately owned towing company from all the companies out there? There's too many questions here and it does not smell right to me.

In addition to this, when we left the impound lot with the van, there was 2 OPP officers sitting on the side of the road. We got the impression they were sitting there waiting to get paid, or waiting to see if we would "cause a problem". Why would their be OPP sitting in a commercial area well out of the way of any major highway or OPP station? They were in Richmond Hill outside a privately owned impound lot. Is this normal? I never see OPP in these types of areas ever! I do howerver see York Regional Police in these areas very often.

What do you guys make of all this? I have copies of the towing receipt where he kept fudging the numbers and raising the price because we wanted to have a receipt. He really really wanted us to pay in CASH with no taxes and no receipt.

Cash only and no receipt?! File a complaint. A big one. And be sure to let Revenue Canada and some fairly high-up people in the OPP know about that.

As for the rest of the stuff... that's odd. But definitely start by getting the word out to the proper authorities about the towing company. That is beyond illegal and if there's anything else going on, it will be discovered. Another place to talk to would be the Ministry of Consumer Services:

http://www.sse.gov.on.ca/mcs/en/pages/default.aspx

Radar Identified: thanks for confirming my suspicions. Do you know where I can find out what the proper rates are for the tow and the days in the impound lot? I want to find out if he ripped off my father-in-law. He had no posted rates, no office, and the only way we were finally able to get him to let us pay by credit card was when he walked us over to a car repair shop on the other side of the impound lot where the guy there reluctantly took the credit card.

You mentioned to let the higher ups in the OPP know about this, do you know whom I could contact and get actual results? Thanks.

Most areas I have worked has a tow association and just ask for next tow on list. The one I am in now does not, so just get the closest tow to the location stopped, unless specific tow needed (ie: extended cab tow, CAA, heavy tow)

Being by a compound is not so uncommon, some collisions require a technical collision investigator who measures depths of dents on vehicles, seatbelt usage, pulls the vehicles "black box" etc.. all from vehicles inside the compound.

Also another officer could have been coming from court, CFS, doing an interview etc and just met up with the officer that was going to the compound at a convenient place. Might be 2 officers from totally different areas passing along mail.

clyrrad wrote:

You mentioned to let the higher ups in the OPP know about this, do you know whom I could contact and get actual results?

Call the detachment the officer is based out of (probably either Downsview or Aurora) and ask to speak to a Staff Sergeant. Any problems, ask for an Inspector. If I were in your shoes, I'd discuss the interaction with the tow company at the impound lot first. The main thing is, they should not be doing any towing for the police. That's for starters.

Revenue Canada would also be very interested in someone saying "oh well if you pay me in cash, you don't have to pay taxes," repeatedly changing the receipt and then hesitantly taking you over to pay by credit card. Good move on your part - your credit card company would have a record of the payment.

As for towing/impound rates, they vary by operator, unfortunately. There is no set rate, as far as I know.

Radar Identified wrote:

clyrrad wrote:

You mentioned to let the higher ups in the OPP know about this, do you know whom I could contact and get actual results?

Call the detachment the officer is based out of (probably either Downsview or Aurora) and ask to speak to a Staff Sergeant. Any problems, ask for an Inspector. If I were in your shoes, I'd discuss the interaction with the tow company at the impound lot first. The main thing is, they should not be doing any towing for the police. That's for starters.

Most detachments in southern Ontario have an "Administrative Manager" which is a Sgt who takes care of questions like this and respond/investigate accordingly.

Radar Identified wrote:

If I were in your shoes, I'd discuss the interaction with the tow company at the impound lot first. The main thing is, they should not be doing any towing for the police. That's for starters.

The tow company and impound lot are owned by the same guy. Its a tow truck driver that has his own impound lot. He has no office, no real phone number - the only number he lists is one that goes to a dispatch center who pages him and he calls you from his cell phone. There is no one (IE a Boss or Supervisor) that I could escalate this to at his company.

Can you also clarify what you meant in the lat part about "they should not be doing any towing for the police" - I didn't quite follow you on that.

hwybear wrote:

Most detachments in southern Ontario have an "Administrative Manager" which is a Sgt who takes care of questions like this and respond/investigate accordingly.

Good to know... that would be the place to start then...

clyrrad wrote:

The tow company and impound lot are owned by the same guy. Its a tow truck driver that has his own impound lot. He has no office, no real phone number - the only number he lists is one that goes to a dispatch center who pages him and he calls you from his cell phone. There is no one (IE a Boss or Supervisor) that I could escalate this to at his company.

Sorry, bad choice of words on my part.

What I meant was, you should tell the OPP Administrative Manager about your interaction with the guy at his lot before mentioning the other stuff.

As for not doing any towing for the police... put another way: OPP should not be contracting with him or calling him to tow any vehicles.

Cool, new forums since I was here last - looks good

I just wanted to send you all an update on this case. So my father-in-law finally got his day in court for these two charges. We had to send 5 requests for disclosure before we got any response, and when the prosecutors office did finally respond, they gave us disclosure 3 days before the trial!!! We have been requesting his disclosure for months and months and months and they only give it to us 3 days before the trial? That does not seem right...

Regardless - with that said, the court date came 3 days later. We were there from 8:30am until 1:30pm waiting for his trial to start. At 1:30 they told us that not only had we wasted our whole day in court, but that they were not going to grant him a trial. He made numerious requests to the court that they grant him his trial since he was there since 8:30 am - but they refused and instead they pushed his trial date back until April.

It is now over a year since he was he was initially pulled over, he had his license suspended, his car towed and impounded - and now he's lost yet another day of work in court (plus parking costs at the court house I might add) - he's suffered enough and they still wouldn't grant him a trial or throw out the case.

From researching this forum and other online resources I understand he now has the ability to file to have the case dismissed due to that fact its taken so long to get a trial - the fact he was only given disclosure 3 days before trial and the fact they could not grant him his original trial date even though he made repeated requests to get the trial over and done with.

Could any of you guys chime in on this and let us know your thoughts are? What paper work we should be looking to have filed to have the case dismissed? I understand from initial reading we should be looking at filing for a section 11 to get the case dismissed? Can any of you point us to the proper resource or information so we can see about getting the case which is long over due dismissed?

Sorry its taken so long to get back to you guys with any news on this case - but you see this is how slow the courts work - we will both really appreciate any help you guys can give us. Thanks.

Here's our "in house" information on how to file an 11B:

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic2952.html

If it has been more than 1 year from the date of the offence, it is likely that the 11B will succeed.

Just for giggles, ask them to reimburse you for the day off work...........and your impound fees..........................waiting for bear to comment............

Thanks Radar Identified - I see I have some reading cut out for me here - appreciate the link thanks again.

Ok - UPDATE -

We have created all the Section 11B documents (6 bound documents) prepared and TABBED in the exact order from all the reading you've link us to - THANKS A MILLION!

Question - the links refer to serving the various agencies but it talks about Toronto. I am referring to:

1) Department of Justice

2) Attorney General of Ontario

3) Ontario Court of Justice

4) The Prosecutors Office

Given that his court will be in the Tannery Mall in Newmarket - does he actually have to go to Toronto and file with all the Toronto locations? Or can those 4 departments be served the documents somewhere in York Region - preferably Newmarket?

To keep this thread updated, I will post the answers to my own questions in the hopes that it can help someone else.

Here are the answers to questions 1 thru 4 (I found out that in my last post the order of who to serve first was wrong for questions 3 & 4 - below is the proper order).

The offices that must be served (in proper order) are:

1) Department of Justice (Attorney General of Canada) - from reading you can serve this office by Fax, but we served them one of the books we created since they were already printed. We served their Toronto office which is located in the Exchange Tower at 130 King St, Suite 3400 Toronto Ontario M5X 1K6

2) Attorney General of Ontario - from reading you can serve this office by Fax, but we served them one of the books we created since they were already printed. We served their Toronto office which is located in the McMurtry-Scott Building at 720 Bay Street. That building has crazy security so you cant go to their office. You have to use the phone they have in the lobby, just look up the extension for the "Constitutional Branch" then ask them to send a clerk to come stamp your "Constitutional Challenge"

3) The Prosecutors Office - these guys are located on the 2nd floor in Suite 266 in the Tannery Mall at 465 Davis Drive in Newmarket. We had the actual prosecutor stamp the books since the woman working at the desk told us that her stamp was no good for a "Part 3" - no idea what that is, but the prosecutor himself put his stamp on each of the books.

4) Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Offenses Office) - these guys are located on the 2nd floor in Suite 200 in the Tannery Mall at 465 Davis Drive in Newmarket. These are the last guys to serve and be prepared to wait in a LONGGGGGGGGGG Line of frustrated fellow citizens while you watch the clerks in each 3 booths take more breaks than you'll ever get at any other job - they kept closing their booths for breaks - they have just 3 booths and most of the time there was just one person at a time "working". Be prepared to be annoyed / frustrated / and have a long wait to get your books stamped.

I hope this helps........

Now I still have a last question of what happens from here - now that the 11B is filed what do we have to do?