Technically it sounds like your odds are pretty good for winning.
I disagree. Until he's got disclosure of the officer's notes, we don't know that.
I'd skip paralegals as they lack training in trial advocacy
Not exactly. For example:https://www.sheridancollege.ca/academic ... legal.aspx
... The program emphasizes development of written and oral advocacy and focuses on all areas of authorized paralegal practice...
While lawyers certainly receive more training than paralegals, paralegals do get training in how to conduct a trial. The difference is, the lawyer will usually cost you more. In highly critical cases like stunt driving or careless driving, depending on what you may be faced with, a lawyer might not be a bad idea. But for a 45 over speeding ticket, a lawyer is not too likely to get you any better results.
and basically just want to plead down your fine which you can easily do yourself.
Some do, some don't. However, most offences paralegals are dealing with are absolute liability and strict liability offences, where the standard for conviction is much lower. Of the times I've observed trials and been in traffic court, some of the paralegals have packed it in and not given a flying rat's @$$, but others have been absolute tigers and quoted all sorts of highly complex case law, picked witnesses apart and blown the Prosecutor's case out of the water. Like anything else: Caveat emptor. I always tell people that when hiring legal assistance, talk carefully to the person they're intending to hire. Some blow you off and want to do as you suggested (just plead it down); others take the time to explain to you what the situation is, what they're going to do, and figure out the best solution. But in all fairness you can't really conclude what's better based solely on whether one is a paralegal or lawyer.
If they're willing to appear as witnesses I'd say go for it, as there's no way he can prove it was you without video evidence. That is unless your car is very distinctive. If it stands out from the crowd it'd be much harder to argue.
I'd be careful with that one. "There's no way he can prove it was you without video evidence" is not accurate. The officer's testimony that he was tracking the vehicle is enough, even if he momentarily lost sight. Once he's given clear testimony to that effect, the job of the OP (should he choose to go this route) will be to introduce doubt by asking questions about how long he lost sight of the vehicle, were there other cars on the road/how many, where did you see the vehicle turn, how long until you saw it again, how far away, did you get the license plate, did you get a general view of the driver, etc. To give a complex example:
Officer: "I was on Queen Street in Brampton, and observed the defendant's vehicle passing others. Based on my training on estimating vehicle speeds, I had reasonable grounds to believe that the vehicle was travelling approximately 40-45 km/h over the speed limit. I activated my Laser Atlanta, which was tested before and after the stop and shown to be in working order, and obtained a reading of 105 km/h in a 60 km/h zone at a distance of 200 metres. I then began to follow the vehicle, which was (make and model) which made a right turn off of Queen Street at Whatever Street. I turned onto Whatever Street and saw the same make and model vehicle. I concluded this was the same vehicle, as it was the only one on the road in the direction of travel and its distance from the intersection would have made sense based upon the time from which it turned to the time I reached the intersection. The vehicle then made a turn onto Some Avenue. At this point, I temporarily lost sight of the vehicle, so drove to Random Road and saw the same make and model vehicle with its brake lights on, having just pulled into the driveway. I saw the defendant exiting the vehicle and proceeding towards his house. Based on time, distance travelled, and the position, I concluded that it was the subject vehicle..."
While it's not perfect or "ideal" from an evidence perspective, it is sufficient. Unless you can testify in an unshaken and reliable manner that you didn't come from that direction, or that there was a big time gap (neighbour and mother's testimony) at that point, you are toast! If the officer's testimony is garbage, well then you might have a good shot there. The standard is reasonable doubt, and what you or I might think is reasonable doubt is probably different than many JPs. Best thing at this point is get disclosure of the offence and see what the officer's notes have. Now if the officer says "no way did I ever lose sight of the vehicle for a single second," then that actually works in your favour, because your mother and neighbour could probably provide convincing evidence contradicting that - and making the officer look unreliable.
The other witness is a neighbour who was outside at the time and witnessed myself parking and the officer showing up some time later.
This time gap also has to reflect when the officer would've possibly seen your vehicle pull in to the driveway. They are trained to look for people who are trying to elude them, whether it is intentional or not. As I'm sure you know, the time the officer arrived doesn't necessarily reflect him losing sight of the vehicle for the same amount of time.