The paralegals will hate this, but the latest case law, which was reviewed in Ontario Court, to be published soon... If a police officer issues a speeding ticket, put the proper fine but omits the actual speeds on the ticket, you can and will be convicted as the speed noted itself is not required to convict you of speeding. The infraction of speeding you are guilty of a 1 km/h over the limit, the quantum merely goes to penalty. How does this benefit the motorist? No speeding amount on the ticket means the Ministry will not assign demerit points, you'd be crazy to fight it in court as the ticket can be amended according to the court at which point you'd get your points!! Officer less likely to go to court, paralegals get less of your money, motorist gets the fine but not the demerits which is what they want most times anyway. The case hasn't been published yet, the decision came down from Justice Mahaffy, but I can assure whatever counterpoints you have were considered as he took 3 weeks to rule on this rather unique approach to enforcement. Looks like a win, win for everyone but the ticket reps. D
The paralegals will hate this, but the latest case law, which was reviewed in Ontario Court, to be published soon...
If a police officer issues a speeding ticket, put the proper fine but omits the actual speeds on the ticket, you can and will be convicted as the speed noted itself is not required to convict you of speeding. The infraction of speeding you are guilty of a 1 km/h over the limit, the quantum merely goes to penalty.
How does this benefit the motorist? No speeding amount on the ticket means the Ministry will not assign demerit points, you'd be crazy to fight it in court as the ticket can be amended according to the court at which point you'd get your points!!
Officer less likely to go to court, paralegals get less of your money, motorist gets the fine but not the demerits which is what they want most times anyway.
The case hasn't been published yet, the decision came down from Justice Mahaffy, but I can assure whatever counterpoints you have were considered as he took 3 weeks to rule on this rather unique approach to enforcement.
Looks like a win, win for everyone but the ticket reps.
Blue elephants fly only on wedensdays like this thread, Bad spelling? Thanks for the info Cheers Viper1
FyreStorm wrote:
The paralegals will hate this, but the latest case law, which was reviewed in Ontario Court, to be published soon...
If a police officer issues a speeding ticket, put the proper fine but omits the actual speeds on the ticket, you can and will be convicted as the speed noted itself is not required to convict you of speeding. The infraction of speeding you are guilty of a 1 km/h over the limit, the quantum merely goes to penalty.
How does this benefit the motorist? No speeding amount on the ticket means the Ministry will not assign demerit points, you'd be crazy to fight it in court as the ticket can be amended according to the court at which point you'd get your points!!
Officer less likely to go to court, paralegals get less of your money, motorist gets the fine but not the demerits which is what they want most times anyway.
The case hasn't been published yet, the decision came down from Justice Mahaffy, but I can assure whatever counterpoints you have were considered as he took 3 weeks to rule on this rather unique approach to enforcement.
Looks like a win, win for everyone but the ticket reps.
D
Blue elephants fly only on wedensdays like this thread,
Bad spelling?
Thanks for the info
Cheers
Viper1
"hang onto your chair when reading my posts
use at your own risk"
It's a decision which originated in Sudbury but was upheld at the Ontario Court of Appeal, one of my co-workers laid the original charge and it's slim on details right now, our local prosecutor has asked us to hold off on laying charges this way until she gets the decision published and educates the JPs on it...I agree points aren't all the be all end all, but it's funny driver after river ask me "How many points is there with this?" When you reduce and tell them no points, they are appreciative.
It's a decision which originated in Sudbury but was upheld at the Ontario Court of Appeal, one of my co-workers laid the original charge and it's slim on details right now, our local prosecutor has asked us to hold off on laying charges this way until she gets the decision published and educates the JPs on it...I agree points aren't all the be all end all, but it's funny driver after river ask me "How many points is there with this?"
When you reduce and tell them no points, they are appreciative.
Thanks for the info FyreStorm. This is BAD not just for paralegals and so on, but this just proves how the courts are run like a business then a place for justice. Surprise I know. When you are accused in this country there should be a greater respect on the rule of law. If you violate the Law then that should be the focal point, to set proper precedent and properly demonstrate to the public why this person is being charged etc.. The dollar amount has become more important than the actual offence. Perhaps this "Justice Mahaffy" thought it would be a smart way to unclog the courts a bit and make more money for the province, seeing how this will encourage the accused to "not fight" the charge. What this is also doing is basically offering the same deal the prosecutor might offer you if you fight it without having to actually attend court. No POINTS, more people will just pay, will unclog the courts a make more money for the province (business move) I guess morality is starting to cost to much now? What is a little more disturbing to me is he has actually set a precedent that will PUNISH you if you decide to defend yourself. Nice mafia tactic. I guess we finally see now why they chose the word "CHARGE" when accusing you of breaking the law. Just pay up and we wont hurt you more then we just did. Supreme court, anybody?
FyreStorm wrote:
The paralegals will hate this, but the latest case law, which was reviewed in Ontario Court, to be published soon...
If a police officer issues a speeding ticket, put the proper fine but omits the actual speeds on the ticket, you can and will be convicted as the speed noted itself is not required to convict you of speeding. The infraction of speeding you are guilty of a 1 km/h over the limit, the quantum merely goes to penalty.
How does this benefit the motorist? No speeding amount on the ticket means the Ministry will not assign demerit points, you'd be crazy to fight it in court as the ticket can be amended according to the court at which point you'd get your points!!
Officer less likely to go to court, paralegals get less of your money, motorist gets the fine but not the demerits which is what they want most times anyway.
The case hasn't been published yet, the decision came down from Justice Mahaffy, but I can assure whatever counterpoints you have were considered as he took 3 weeks to rule on this rather unique approach to enforcement.
Looks like a win, win for everyone but the ticket reps.
D
Thanks for the info FyreStorm. This is BAD not just for paralegals and so on, but this just proves how the courts are run like a business then a place for justice. Surprise I know.
When you are accused in this country there should be a greater respect on the rule of law. If you violate the Law then that should be the focal point, to set proper precedent and properly demonstrate to the public why this person is being charged etc..
The dollar amount has become more important than the actual offence.
Perhaps this "Justice Mahaffy" thought it would be a smart way to unclog the courts a bit and make more money for the province, seeing how this will encourage the accused to "not fight" the charge. What this is also doing is basically offering the same deal the prosecutor might offer you if you fight it without having to actually attend court. No POINTS, more people will just pay, will unclog the courts a make more money for the province (business move) I guess morality is starting to cost to much now?
What is a little more disturbing to me is he has actually set a precedent that will PUNISH you if you decide to defend yourself. Nice mafia tactic.
I guess we finally see now why they chose the word "CHARGE" when accusing you of breaking the law. Just pay up and we wont hurt you more then we just did.
Supreme court, anybody?
"It's only a matter of time before you get pulled over for something"
I got ticket for failing to stop at stop sign in Toronto. i heard that the police officer must see the stop line, if there is one, from where he was sitting. That is exactly my case, Is it a strong case? If so do i need a picture to show that there is a stop line and a picture to show that he could not see the stop line from where he was sitting?
I got a ticket, Disobey stop sign, sec 136.1.a on dec 6th
I made a left in an intersection and was pulled over by a police officer in an unmarked car who had been sitting down the road. A classic fishing hole situation. I was genuinely surprised when he stopped me and told me I went through a stop sign without even slowing down. I know to shut up and be polite and take the ticket. I…
Yesterday morning, I rear-ended someone. I was going the speed limit. The sun was directly in front of me and it blinded my windshield and my eyes. At the same time, the person in front of me stopped/slowed down (also due to the sun). I started to slow down but didn't stop and I hit them since I couldn't see anything. I was not driving too close initially. I…
I was driving in the county at night and hit a limousine stretched out side ways across the road. The limo had its lights on and had side lighting as well. The police officer charged me with careless driving because it was "fully lit up".
It took me to the next day to figure out what had happened - what I remember made no sense. What I had run across was a "false visual reference" illusion.
I was on hwy 37 trying to make my girlfriends ganadmas mass and I live an hour away and I had an hour to get there so I was going fast but not 50 over untill some idiot got on my tail soo close that I was to concentrated on him that I kept going faster untill I got pulled over at 147 on an 80 km hwy.
I alreaddy lost 3 points and this time was just the…
Hello, got stopped today for rolling a stop sign. Ticket says failure to stop, but quotes hta 1361b.
Doesn't 1361b mean failure to yield?
Is this a fatal error? Or could it be amended at trial. How can I prepare a defence if I don't know if I'm defending the failure to stop or the failure to yield?
After he was providing me with a ticket for failure to obey to the stop sign (I am pretty sure I stopped but less than 3 seconds recommended by my driver ed. instructor), I know everybody say that..as an excuse.
Then he stopped me again to return the documents.
Any advice and feed back would be really appreciated.
Can you get evidence for whether someone had an advanced green at an intersection? My dad was making a right turn on a red (after stopping) into a plaza parking lot. He got hit by someone making a left turn from the opposite lane. The driver told the officer called to the collision that he had an advance green. My dad said he came out of nowhere which makes me…
So i was driving on Eglinton Avenue East near Rosemount Ave.
The school bus was on the the curb on the opposite side of the road while i was travelling on the middle lane of the three-laned Eglinton Avenue East (five lanes apart plus a raised median island seperating the traffic)
I could not see the school bus as my view of the bus was being obstructed by the cars in front of me and on my left hand…
Lots of good information on getting disclosure from the Crown here.
Now, I am just wondering if I will be relying upon evidence of my own at trial... do I have to voluntarily send this material to the Crown in a reasonable time before the trial, or only if they request disclosure from me?
This morning I had an exam for university. I was studying the entire night and i wanted to catch like maybe 1-2 hours of sleep before the exam so i went to sleep. I woke up like 5 hrs after and realize that I was about to miss my exam. I still could have made it so I asked my dad for his car since I was in a huge rush and he gave it to me.
I went on the highway and I was going at 135 km/h but…
the police officer was in in the opesite oncumming lane he was fallowing another car so close that i was not even able to see his cruser till he was buy he said that i was going 111 in a 80 he said he hade me on radar he only asked for me drivers licencs and never asked for my insurence so on the ticket there no insurence dose enyone think i can beat this i wana take it to cort becuse he was…
Hi I have a couple questions so I'll explain my situation and any advice would be appreciated.
Can't remember exact date so lets call it some time in 2008 I got a fine for $5000.00 for driving without in insurance. I never paid the fine and in 2012 I was pulled over and the officer asked to see my license. Although I had it on me I figured it would be under suspension for the unpaid fine from…
Alright, so I did something really stupid the other day, I was driving down a country road and wanted to hit the curves so I passed 3 cars at once, inadvertently making it up to very much past 50 over (80 limit)... Much to my chagrin there was a cop coming in the opposite direction who immediately skidded on the gravel shoulder and who I thought was 100% going to turn around and pull me over,…
Anyone know how backed this courthouse is? I submitted my ticket for trial at the end of August, and still no letter. Im scared it got lost in the mail, can i call the courthouse and find out my courtdate? Or would i have to go in personally?
I recently received a ticket for failure to use low beams - while following - Ticket was issued Sec 168 (
- it was on the 401 and no one was within 500 meters of me, I was warning a oncoming vehicle that there was an officer hiding (which is not illegal or I could not find a law against it) it was a police vehicle travelling at very high rate of speed in the opposite direction with no lights on…
I received a warning letter from MTO for a 2pts ticket.What happened is that the police officer issued a "unsafe left turn" and then changed the ticket to "failed to signal" at the scene, but she submitted both tickets!!! And I !!!ONLY!!! received the latter ticket from her(I requested trial for "failed to signal"). I recently received notice from MTO that I'm convicted for "unsafe left turn".
Hello everyone! I was given a ticket for using a hand-held communication device while driving. It was 3 am, I was at a stop light and the cop saw me with the my phone in my hand. I told him i was just checking the time on it. I received the notes a few weeks ago ill copy them down below. Any help is appreciated although i believe there's no hope for me. The cop recorded me saying what phone i…
I got pulled over about 15 or so days ago the court till this date has not received the summons what is the legal time period that the court has to follow to accept the summons from the office court says its 15 days is the legal timeframe the officer has to serve it on the court
I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
Last Friday I was pulled over by an OPP motorcycle cop who informed me I was going 134. I was on the SB 404, I did see him parked under a bridge and when I passed him he was not on his bike.
I'm hoping to get some insight for a defense in this case.
I was in lane 1 and I had a car in front of me, and a car behind me, also there was a car speeding down Lane 3 passing everyone and moved quickly into…
