Hello,

I was pulled over two nights ago and charged with failing to stop a stop sign. On the ticket, it says 'disobey stop sign - foil to stop' and does not say 'fail' -- something I think may be a fatal flaw? I have been driving for 12 years with no tickets, yet I live in Brampton where insurance prices are high so I do not want to be convicted as my insurance rates will spike significantly and I can hardly afford to drive my current car (an old one).

I was thinking of meeting with the prosecutor and attempting to reduce the ticket to another charge with no demerit points as I don't mind paying a fine to just get this whole ordeal over with; I just don't want any demerit points.

My questions are:

1. Is it a fatal flaw that it says 'foil' instead of 'fail'? A pretty significant word to misspell.

2. If it is a fatal flaw, do I tell it to the prosecutor to have it dropped it how do I proceed with this?

3. Is it worth a shot to meet and attempt to reduce the ticket to a charge that just carries a fine? I read that even if the prosecutor drops the demerit points on the ticket, the insurance companies do not care and will still raise the rates. If not, maybe just decrease it to 'disobey sign' which only has 2 demerit points vs the 3 my ticket carries.

Thank you all so much!!

1) No, that wouldn't be a fatal error.

2) Search through the forum. There's several threads explaining how to best proceed with fatal errors.

3) Insurance providers look at all convictions, regardless of demerit points. Getting it reduced from a 3 to 2 demerit point offence would make no difference.

Hi Stanton,

Thank you for your reply. This whole situation really bothers me so I was wondering also am I able to just meet with the prosecutor and change the charge to a non-moving violation like a large parking ticket, no seatbelt as a passenger, etc or does it have to be related to the original violation?

ticketholder wrote:

1. Is it a fatal flaw that it says 'foil' instead of 'fail'? A pretty significant word to misspell.

No. An "a" that looks like an "o" is not significant.

ticketholder wrote:

3. Is it worth a shot to meet and attempt to reduce the ticket to a charge that just carries a fine? I read that even if the prosecutor drops the demerit points on the ticket, the insurance companies do not care and will still raise the rates. If not, maybe just decrease it to 'disobey sign' which only has 2 demerit points vs the 3 my ticket carries.

Demerit points are a Ministry of Transportation penalty system that may determine whether additional penalties are needed due to driving behavior in 2 year periods. Insurance companies do not factor in demerit points at all, they simply look at the charge.

Demerit points start of the day you were charged and last 2 years. Convictions will start from the day you were convicted in court and will be on your abstract longer than the points. If you request a trial, the points are already on the clock.

Points are pretty much a non factor for the majority of full G licensed drivers. You'd have to collect a large amount in a short period of time for it to be an issue. Novice drivers on the other hand can be suspended simply on a single conviction of 4 or more points.

Whether or not your insurance company raises your rates is up to our insurance company and whether they deem you as a risk for a potential payout in the future.

If you feel you've exhausted your options, there's no harm in listening to whatever offer may be given to you by a prosecutor. Usually, most individuals here will request a trial, request disclosure, and go from there. The same offer that will present itself at an early resolution meeting will be offered at your trial date.

ticketholder wrote:

Hi Stanton,

Thank you for your reply. This whole situation really bothers me so I was wondering also am I able to just meet with the prosecutor and change the charge to a non-moving violation like a large parking ticket, no seatbelt as a passenger, etc or does it have to be related to the original violation?

An offer will usually be the next lowest charge in relation to your original ticket. For example, you wont receive a muffler ticket to replace a speeding ticket. You would most likely receive the next lowest speeding bracket based on demerit points.

The a does not look like an o; it is an o. The policeman wrote in capitals so the a's and o's are obvious. For example, he wrote 'HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT' and 'FOIL' so it is very clear that is an O.

In response to the next lowest ticket: my total payable right now is 110.00 so if I plea guilty, the city gets $110.00 from me but I am paying thousands for the next few years in insurance hikes (no affect for the city). A charge of no seatbelt as a passenger is 110.00 but does not affect insurance so the city still receives 110.00 (same benefit for the city) and I avoid the insurance hike. Does this seem like a viable option to present to the prosecutor? I was driving down a street at night that I NEVER drive down and the street has a bend, so I came upon the stop sign quickly, stopped probably for a total of 1 second, then continued to move on.

ticketholder wrote:

The a does not look like an o; it is an o. The policeman wrote in capitals so the a's and o's are obvious. For example, he wrote 'HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT' and 'FOIL' so it is very clear that is an O.

It doesn't matter either way. It would be best to save your resources elsewhere because this argument isn't going to benefit you.

ticketholder wrote:

In response to the next lowest ticket: my total payable right now is 110.00 so if I plea guilty, the city gets $110.00 from me but I am paying thousands for the next few years in insurance hikes (no affect for the city). A charge of no seatbelt as a passenger is 110.00 but does not affect insurance so the city still receives 110.00 (same benefit for the city) and I avoid the insurance hike. Does this seem like a viable option to present to the prosecutor?

It wont happen.

ticketholder wrote:

I was driving down a street at night that I NEVER drive down and the street has a bend, so I came upon the stop sign quickly, stopped probably for a total of 1 second, then continued to move on.

Whether or not you've used the street before is not going to be a defense to the charge. There is no timed requirement for a stop sign. You either came to a complete stop or you didn't. If you're saying you came to complete stop for a full second, you can request a trial. Request disclosure once you get your Notice of Trial and you can go from there.

ticketholder wrote:

In response to the next lowest ticket: my total payable right now is 110.00 so if I plea guilty, the city gets $110.00 from me but I am paying thousands for the next few years in insurance hikes (no affect for the city). A charge of no seatbelt as a passenger is 110.00 but does not affect insurance so the city still receives 110.00 (same benefit for the city) and I avoid the insurance hike. Does this seem like a viable option to present to the prosecutor?

The issue is that the offence for which you plead guilty to has to somehow relate to the offence you actually committed. Thats why youll speeds lowered on speeding tickets, careless charges in rear end collisions changed to following too close, red light offences changed to disobey lane light, etc. A seatbelt charge has no relation whatsoever to the stop sign offence, therefor it cant be offered.

Stanton wrote:

The issue is that the offence for which you plead guilty to has to somehow relate to the offence you actually committed. Thats why youll speeds lowered on speeding tickets, careless charges in rear end collisions changed to following too close, red light offences changed to disobey lane light, etc. A seatbelt charge has no relation whatsoever to the stop sign offence, therefor it cant be offered.

So is there any offence that I can have as an alternative that I can plead guilty to as a non-moving offence? A red-light camera charge is somewhat similar but carries a $325 fine, which honestly I would pay if it avoids an insurance spike. I work seven days a week so taking a day off work to meet with the prosecutor, go to trial, etc are already going to cost me a lot of money so I would rather meet with the prosecutor, attempt to come to a joint agreement, pay the fine if we can agree to something, and move on. Otherwise, I don't even see a point in meeting with the prosecutor and instead, just going straight to trial if the prosecutor is unable to really offer me anything that isn't a moving offence. The worst part is I got pulled over on my birthday!

I can only speak for Toronto but if someone shows up and wants to save points the Prosecutors will usually offer Improper Stop Sec 144(5)(a) or Fail to Proceed as Directed Sec 144(12). But only if the person is willing to accept responsibility right away without argument. This will knock the points off on conviction.