Hi, Part of the strategy described on ticketcombat.com ( http://www.ticketcombat.com/step5/nonsuit.php ) is that most traffic charges in urban areas need a corresponding by-law. The example given is speeding in a community safety zone. In that case, it's quite clearly stated in the highway traffic act that a by-law is required: 214.1 (1) The council of a municipality may by by-law designate a part of a highway under its jurisdiction as a community safety zone if, in the councils opinion, public safety is of special concern on that part of the highway. 1998, c. 6, s. 1. In my case, the charge was failing to obey a (no u-turn) traffic sign (182.2). That regulation, as far as I can see, makes no mention of requiring a by-law. Should I still propose a Motion of Non-Suit if I don't get a by-law in the disclosure? I'm asking because ticketcombat.com says that "almost any traffic charge in urban areas, especially parking infractions [require a by-law]. In all these cases, you are being charged based on a by-law regulating traffic (speed, turns, construction zones, stop signs, etc.)". Thanks

Topic

Do all traffic signs require a by-law?

by: painkiller on

16 Replies

User avatar
Radar Identified
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 2881
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Do all traffic signs require a by-law?

Short answer to your question: No. But... a while ago, when observing a trial, I saw a case stayed for non-disclosure because the Crown did not provide the defendant with a copy of the by-law. The Crown argued that the existence of the sign was "prima facie" evidence of the existence of the by-law, some sort of case law cited. They went back and forth but the JP finally stayed the charge. That was for a "disobey sign," though. I've heard of cases where it hasn't worked, too.

case law wrote:

Has anyone here successfully used the by-law argument in court for a stop sign yet?

Short answer to your question: No. But... a while ago, when observing a trial, I saw a case stayed for non-disclosure because the Crown did not provide the defendant with a copy of the by-law. The Crown argued that the existence of the sign was "prima facie" evidence of the existence of the by-law, some sort of case law cited. They went back and forth but the JP finally stayed the charge. That was for a "disobey sign," though. I've heard of cases where it hasn't worked, too.

rancher
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:16 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Do all traffic signs require a by-law?

I'm going to try the by-law defense this upcoming Monday...third appearance for the same ticket. This time I'm asking for a trial, and if they run out of time I have a rock solid 11B.

I'm going to try the by-law defense this upcoming Monday...third appearance for the same ticket. This time I'm asking for a trial, and if they run out of time I have a rock solid 11B.

Similar Topics

Return to “Failing to obey signs”