Section 48(6) says you can request a second test and s. 48(6.2) says immediately upon being requested to do so by the police officer. Section 48(6) does allow the cop to request a second test; it only allows the driver to request it. Opportunity for second analysis 48(6) Where an analysis of the breath of a person is made under subsection (2) and registers "Warn" or "Alert" or otherwise indicates that the concentration of alcohol in the persons blood is 50 milligrams or more of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, the person may require that a second analysis be performed if the person requests the second analysis immediately after the police officer requests the surrender of his or her licence under subsection (2). Screening device, instrument used for second analysis (6.1) The second analysis must be performed with a different approved screening device than was used in the analysis under subsection (2) or, if the police officer thinks it is preferable, with an instrument approved as suitable for the purpose of section 254 of the Criminal Code (Canada). Second analysis governs (6.2) Where a person provides a sample of breath for the second analysis requested under subsection (6) immediately upon being requested to do so by the police officer, the result of the second analysis governs and any suspension resulting from the analysis under subsection (2) continues or terminates accordingly.
Section 48(6) says you can request a second test and s. 48(6.2) says immediately upon being requested to do so by the police officer.
Section 48(6) does allow the cop to request a second test; it only allows the driver to request it.
Opportunity for second analysis
48(6) Where an analysis of the breath of a person is made under subsection (2) and registers "Warn" or "Alert" or otherwise indicates that the concentration of alcohol in the persons blood is 50 milligrams or more of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, the person may require that a second analysis be performed if the person requests the second analysis immediately after the police officer requests the surrender of his or her licence under subsection (2).
Screening device, instrument used for second analysis
(6.1) The second analysis must be performed with a different approved screening device than was used in the analysis under subsection (2) or, if the police officer thinks it is preferable, with an instrument approved as suitable for the purpose of section 254 of the Criminal Code (Canada).
Second analysis governs
(6.2) Where a person provides a sample of breath for the second analysis requested under subsection (6) immediately upon being requested to do so by the police officer, the result of the second analysis governs and any suspension resulting from the analysis under subsection (2) continues or terminates accordingly.
Setion 48(6.1) says a second analysis must be performed with a different approved screening device, or if the police officer thinks it is preferable, with an instrument approved as suitable for the purpose of section 254 of the Criminal Code. Instrument approved as suitable for the purpose of section 254 of the Criminal Code are only allowed to be used for purposes or s. 253 of the Criminal Code. Screening devices and approved instrument are two separate and different pieces of machinery. Using an "approved instrument" under the Code triggers all the presumption clauses under s. 258. HTA 48(6.1) The second analysis must be performed with a different approved screening device than was used in the analysis under subsection (2) or, if the police officer thinks it is preferable, with an instrument approved as suitable for the purpose of section 254 of the Criminal Code (Canada). Criminal Code "approved instrument" means an instrument of a kind that is designed to receive and make an analysis of a sample of the breath of a person in order to measure the concentration of alcohol in the blood of that person and is approved as suitable for the purposes of section 258 by order of the Attorney General of Canada.
Setion 48(6.1) says a second analysis must be performed with a different approved screening device, or if the police officer thinks it is preferable, with an instrument approved as suitable for the purpose of section 254 of the Criminal Code.
Instrument approved as suitable for the purpose of section 254 of the Criminal Code are only allowed to be used for purposes or s. 253 of the Criminal Code.
Screening devices and approved instrument are two separate and different pieces of machinery.
Using an "approved instrument" under the Code triggers all the presumption clauses under s. 258.
HTA
48(6.1) The second analysis must be performed with a different approved screening device than was used in the analysis under subsection (2) or, if the police officer thinks it is preferable, with an instrument approved as suitable for the purpose of section 254 of the Criminal Code (Canada).
Criminal Code
"approved instrument" means an instrument of a kind that is designed to receive and make an analysis of a sample of the breath of a person in order to measure the concentration of alcohol in the blood of that person and is approved as suitable for the purposes of section 258 by order of the Attorney General of Canada.
Impaired operation or impaired care and control are mens rea offences. The province impaired related sections under HTA s. 48 are also mens rea. But the province improperly treats it as an absolute liabilty offence. Mens rea offence place the burden and standard of proof on the Province. No hearing is ever provided to the accused and the Province licence suspension is thus not legal. Section 48(9) violates the Charter and is of no force or effect. Once a license has been issued, the right to use one's skill and ability to drive is protected under s. 7 of the Charter and cannot be taken away except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Section 48(8) articulates the words "absence of proof to the contrary." The expressions "evidence to the contrary" in Code s. 258(1)(c), "any evidence to the contrary" implicit in s. 258(1)(g) and "evidence tending to show" in s. 258(1)(d.1) reflect this same standard. Proof to the contrary is akin to the aforementioned Code sections and the difference in wording is not meaningful for the purpose of determining what type of evidence will rebut the presumption, the standard of proof or who bears the burden of proof. The standard of proof that must be met to rebut the presumption of accuracy is reasonable doubt. The trier of fact does not have to be satisfied on a balance of probabilities and the accused has no burden of proof. The Province bears the burden and the burden never shifts to the accused. The HTA provides no principles for determining what evidence is admissible. One cannot point to any particular part of the range of possibilities to constitute evidence to the contrary. One must look at the evidence; that is the whole range of possibilities. The choice whether to submit to a rebuttal belongs to the accused and he or she retains the right to introduce such evidence despite its weaknesses. However, no hearing is even provided to an accused, the government never discharges its burden of proof, the standard of proof has NEVER been met since the short-term suspensions were introduced in the early '80s, and thus, the short-term suspensions are not constitutional. Calibration of screening device (7) For the purposes of subsection (2), the approved screening device shall not be calibrated to register "Warn" or "Alert" or to otherwise indicate that the concentration of alcohol in the persons blood is 50 milligrams or more of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood if the concentration of alcohol in the blood of the person whose breath is being analyzed is less than 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. 2007, c. 13, s. 10. Same (8) It shall be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that any approved screening device used for the purposes of subsection (2) has been calibrated as required under subsection (7). No appeal or hearing (9) There is no appeal from, or right to be heard before, the suspension of a drivers licence under this section, but this subsection does not affect the taking of any proceeding in court.
Impaired operation or impaired care and control are mens rea offences.
The province impaired related sections under HTA s. 48 are also mens rea. But the province improperly treats it as an absolute liabilty offence.
Mens rea offence place the burden and standard of proof on the Province.
No hearing is ever provided to the accused and the Province licence suspension is thus not legal.
Section 48(9) violates the Charter and is of no force or effect.
Once a license has been issued, the right to use one's skill and ability to drive is protected under s. 7 of the Charter and cannot be taken away except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Section 48(8) articulates the words "absence of proof to the contrary."
The expressions "evidence to the contrary" in Code s. 258(1)(c), "any evidence to the contrary" implicit in s. 258(1)(g) and "evidence tending to show" in s. 258(1)(d.1) reflect this same standard.
Proof to the contrary is akin to the aforementioned Code sections and the difference in wording is not meaningful for the purpose of determining what type of evidence will rebut the presumption, the standard of proof or who bears the burden of proof.
The standard of proof that must be met to rebut the presumption of accuracy is reasonable doubt. The trier of fact does not have to be satisfied on a balance of probabilities and the accused has no burden of proof.
The Province bears the burden and the burden never shifts to the accused.
The HTA provides no principles for determining what evidence is admissible. One cannot point to any particular part of the range of possibilities to constitute evidence to the contrary. One must look at the evidence; that is the whole range of possibilities.
The choice whether to submit to a rebuttal belongs to the accused and he or she retains the right to introduce such evidence despite its weaknesses.
However, no hearing is even provided to an accused, the government never discharges its burden of proof, the standard of proof has NEVER been met since the short-term suspensions were introduced in the early '80s, and thus, the short-term suspensions are not constitutional.
Calibration of screening device
(7) For the purposes of subsection (2), the approved screening device shall not be calibrated to register "Warn" or "Alert" or to otherwise indicate that the concentration of alcohol in the persons blood is 50 milligrams or more of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood if the concentration of alcohol in the blood of the person whose breath is being analyzed is less than 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. 2007, c. 13, s. 10.
Same
(8) It shall be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that any approved screening device used for the purposes of subsection (2) has been calibrated as required under subsection (7).
No appeal or hearing
(9) There is no appeal from, or right to be heard before, the suspension of a drivers licence under this section, but this subsection does not affect the taking of any proceeding in court.
HTA s. 48 relies on s. 254 of the Criminal Code in enforce its short-term suspensions. Each section of 254 requires the peace officer to reasonable grounds to demand a breath test. The words reasonable grounds bears a burden and standard of proof. The Province bears the burden and the burden never shifts to the accused. The standard of proof is reasonable doubt. And as explianed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Bernshaw, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254, the test for reasonable and probable grounds has both a subjective and objective component. http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1995/1 ... 1-254.html "The Criminal Code provides that where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person has committed an offence pursuant to s. 253 of the Code, the police officer may demand a breathalyzer. The existence of reasonable and probable grounds entails both an objective and a subjective component. That is, s. 254(3) of the Code requires that the police officer subjectively have an honest belief that the suspect has committed the offence and objectively there must exist reasonable grounds for this belief: R. v. Callaghan, [1974] 3 W.W.R. 70 (Sask. Dist. Ct.); R. v. Belnavis, [1993] O.J. No. 637 (Gen. Div.) (QL); R. v. Richard (1993), 12 O.R. (3d) 260 (Prov. Div.); and see also R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241, regarding the requirements for reasonable and probable grounds in the context of an arrest....[para. 48] [also notice the court only mentions an offence under s. 253] However, once again, no hearing if ever provided to the accused, the government has never discharged its burden of proof, the standard of proof has never been met, yet short-term suspensions and car impoundments have illegally occur since the early '80s. 254(2) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol or a drug in their body and that the person has, within the preceding three hours, operated a motor vehicle or vessel, operated or assisted in the operation of an aircraft or railway equipment or had the care or control of a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment, whether it was in motion or not, the peace officer may, by demand, require the person to comply with paragraph (a), in the case of a drug, or with either or both of paragraphs (a) and (b), in the case of alcohol: (a) to perform forthwith physical coordination tests prescribed by regulation to enable the peace officer to determine whether a demand may be made under subsection (3) or (3.1) and, if necessary, to accompany the peace officer for that purpose; and (b) to provide forthwith a sample of breath that, in the peace officers opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made by means of an approved screening device and, if necessary, to accompany the peace officer for that purpose. Video recording (2.1) For greater certainty, a peace officer may make a video recording of a performance of the physical coordination tests referred to in paragraph (2)(a). Samples of breath or blood (3) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is committing, or at any time within the preceding three hours has committed, an offence under section 253 as a result of the consumption of alcohol, the peace officer may, by demand made as soon as practicable, require the person (a) to provide, as soon as practicable, (i) samples of breath that, in a qualified technicians opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made to determine the concentration, if any, of alcohol in the persons blood, or (ii) if the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that, because of their physical condition, the person may be incapable of providing a sample of breath or it would be impracticable to obtain a sample of breath, samples of blood that, in the opinion of the qualified medical practitioner or qualified technician taking the samples, will enable a proper analysis to be made to determine the concentration, if any, of alcohol in the persons blood; and (b) if necessary, to accompany the peace officer for that purpose. Evaluation (3.1) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is committing, or at any time within the preceding three hours has committed, an offence under paragraph 253(1)(a) as a result of the consumption of a drug or of a combination of alcohol and a drug, the peace officer may, by demand made as soon as practicable, require the person to submit, as soon as practicable, to an evaluation conducted by an evaluating officer to determine whether the persons ability to operate a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug, and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose. Video recording (3.2) For greater certainty, a peace officer may make a video recording of an evaluation referred to in subsection (3.1). Testing for presence of alcohol (3.3) If the evaluating officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has alcohol in their body and if a demand was not made under paragraph (2)(b) or subsection (3), the evaluating officer may, by demand made as soon as practicable, require the person to provide, as soon as practicable, a sample of breath that, in the evaluating officers opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made by means of an approved instrument. Samples of bodily substances (3.4) If, on completion of the evaluation, the evaluating officer has reasonable grounds to believe, based on the evaluation, that the persons ability to operate a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug, the evaluating officer may, by demand made as soon as practicable, require the person to provide, as soon as practicable, (a) a sample of either oral fluid or urine that, in the evaluating officers opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made to determine whether the person has a drug in their body; or (b) samples of blood that, in the opinion of the qualified medical practitioner or qualified technician taking the samples, will enable a proper analysis to be made to determine whether the person has a drug in their body.
HTA s. 48 relies on s. 254 of the Criminal Code in enforce its short-term suspensions. Each section of 254 requires the peace officer to reasonable grounds to demand a breath test.
The words reasonable grounds bears a burden and standard of proof.
The Province bears the burden and the burden never shifts to the accused.
The standard of proof is reasonable doubt.
And as explianed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Bernshaw, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254, the test for reasonable and probable grounds has both a subjective and objective component.
"The Criminal Code provides that where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person has committed an offence pursuant to s. 253 of the Code, the police officer may demand a breathalyzer. The existence of reasonable and probable grounds entails both an objective and a subjective component. That is, s. 254(3) of the Code requires that the police officer subjectively have an honest belief that the suspect has committed the offence and objectively there must exist reasonable grounds for this belief: R. v. Callaghan, [1974] 3 W.W.R. 70 (Sask. Dist. Ct.); R. v. Belnavis, [1993] O.J. No. 637 (Gen. Div.) (QL); R. v. Richard (1993), 12 O.R. (3d) 260 (Prov. Div.); and see also R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241, regarding the requirements for reasonable and probable grounds in the context of an arrest....[para. 48]
[also notice the court only mentions an offence under s. 253]
However, once again, no hearing if ever provided to the accused, the government has never discharged its burden of proof, the standard of proof has never been met, yet short-term suspensions and car impoundments have illegally occur since the early '80s.
254(2) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol or a drug in their body and that the person has, within the preceding three hours, operated a motor vehicle or vessel, operated or assisted in the operation of an aircraft or railway equipment or had the care or control of a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment, whether it was in motion or not, the peace officer may, by demand, require the person to comply with paragraph (a), in the case of a drug, or with either or both of paragraphs (a) and (b), in the case of alcohol:
(a) to perform forthwith physical coordination tests prescribed by regulation to enable the peace officer to determine whether a demand may be made under subsection (3) or (3.1) and, if necessary, to accompany the peace officer for that purpose; and
(b) to provide forthwith a sample of breath that, in the peace officers opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made by means of an approved screening device and, if necessary, to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.
Video recording
(2.1) For greater certainty, a peace officer may make a video recording of a performance of the physical coordination tests referred to in paragraph (2)(a).
Samples of breath or blood
(3) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is committing, or at any time within the preceding three hours has committed, an offence under section 253 as a result of the consumption of alcohol, the peace officer may, by demand made as soon as practicable, require the person
(a) to provide, as soon as practicable,
(i) samples of breath that, in a qualified technicians opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made to determine the concentration, if any, of alcohol in the persons blood, or
(ii) if the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that, because of their physical condition, the person may be incapable of providing a sample of breath or it would be impracticable to obtain a sample of breath, samples of blood that, in the opinion of the qualified medical practitioner or qualified technician taking the samples, will enable a proper analysis to be made to determine the concentration, if any, of alcohol in the persons blood; and
(b) if necessary, to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.
Evaluation
(3.1) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is committing, or at any time within the preceding three hours has committed, an offence under paragraph 253(1)(a) as a result of the consumption of a drug or of a combination of alcohol and a drug, the peace officer may, by demand made as soon as practicable, require the person to submit, as soon as practicable, to an evaluation conducted by an evaluating officer to determine whether the persons ability to operate a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug, and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.
Video recording
(3.2) For greater certainty, a peace officer may make a video recording of an evaluation referred to in subsection (3.1).
Testing for presence of alcohol
(3.3) If the evaluating officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has alcohol in their body and if a demand was not made under paragraph (2)(b) or subsection (3), the evaluating officer may, by demand made as soon as practicable, require the person to provide, as soon as practicable, a sample of breath that, in the evaluating officers opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made by means of an approved instrument.
Samples of bodily substances
(3.4) If, on completion of the evaluation, the evaluating officer has reasonable grounds to believe, based on the evaluation, that the persons ability to operate a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug, the evaluating officer may, by demand made as soon as practicable, require the person to provide, as soon as practicable,
(a) a sample of either oral fluid or urine that, in the evaluating officers opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made to determine whether the person has a drug in their body; or
(b) samples of blood that, in the opinion of the qualified medical practitioner or qualified technician taking the samples, will enable a proper analysis to be made to determine whether the person has a drug in their body.
Last edited by Lawman on Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
If you actually read s. 254 you can see by the construction of the provisions that s. 254 is a total stranger to HTA s. 48. Section 254 only applies to s. 253 of the Criminal Code and the province is barred from using the breath test results to enforce its short-term suspensions. Only s. 254(2)(b) could remotely be argued to apply to the province. However, 254(2)(a) directly refers to s. 254 subsection (3) or (3.1), and subsection (3) or (3.1) only apply to offence commited under s. 253 of the Criminal Code. Therefore, it can be inferred that s. 254(2)(b) also only applies to s. 253 as well. Section 254 only applies to persons targeted by Parliament, not the legislatures of the provinces and territories. Importantly, the government is relying on Criminal Code s. 258.1(2)(b) to use the test results to enforce its suspensions. Section 258.1(2)(b) states: Unauthorized use or disclosure of results 258.1(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), no person shall use, disclose or allow the disclosure of the results of physical coordination tests under paragraph 254(2)(a), the results of an evaluation under subsection 254(3.1), the results of the analysis of a bodily substance taken under paragraph 254(2)(b), subsection 254(3), (3.3) or (3.4) or section 256 or with the consent of the person from whom it was taken after a request by a peace officer, or the results of the analysis of medical samples that are provided by consent and subsequently seized under a warrant, except ... (b) for the purpose of the administration or enforcement of the law of a province. However, in Canada we have territories and not only provinces. People in the territories are not included in s. 258.1(2)(b). Section 15 of the Charter articulates that "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination." Therefore, your s. 15 Charter rights are being violated as the people in the territories are not being subject to the same federal law as you are in Ontario, and this breach of your rights is not saved under s. 1 of the Charter. The government has also not included the s. 33 notwithstanding clause in s. 48 of the HTA. At no time has the Province alleged s. 253(a) was a colourable intrusion into provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights and its enactment an invalid exercise of Parliaments jurisdiction over criminal law, public safety and good government power. It is also well-settled that merely incidental effects will not disturb the constitutionality of an otherwise intra vires law. Thus, even if the provincial suspensions were valid its dominant purpose is to not only significantly hinder, but also eliminate the ability of the federal government to enforce s. 253(a). It also jeopardizes the conviction of every laid impaired driving or refusal to blow charge in Canada. Section 254(5) states; (5) Everyone commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a demand made under this section. Since short-term suspensions are unconstitutional and still being applied, every person in Canada (other than in Quebec as they have no short-term suspensions because they clearly understand the law) has a reasonable excuse to refuse to comply with a demand for a breath sample under s. 254 of the Criminal Code, and under s. 48 of the HTA.
If you actually read s. 254 you can see by the construction of the provisions that s. 254 is a total stranger to HTA s. 48.
Section 254 only applies to s. 253 of the Criminal Code and the province is barred from using the breath test results to enforce its short-term suspensions.
Only s. 254(2)(b) could remotely be argued to apply to the province.
However, 254(2)(a) directly refers to s. 254 subsection (3) or (3.1), and subsection (3) or (3.1) only apply to offence commited under s. 253 of the Criminal Code. Therefore, it can be inferred that s. 254(2)(b) also only applies to s. 253 as well.
Section 254 only applies to persons targeted by Parliament, not the legislatures of the provinces and territories.
Importantly, the government is relying on Criminal Code s. 258.1(2)(b) to use the test results to enforce its suspensions.
Section 258.1(2)(b) states:
Unauthorized use or disclosure of results
258.1(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), no person shall use, disclose or allow the disclosure of the results of physical coordination tests under paragraph 254(2)(a), the results of an evaluation under subsection 254(3.1), the results of the analysis of a bodily substance taken under paragraph 254(2)(b), subsection 254(3), (3.3) or (3.4) or section 256 or with the consent of the person from whom it was taken after a request by a peace officer, or the results of the analysis of medical samples that are provided by consent and subsequently seized under a warrant, except
...
(b) for the purpose of the administration or enforcement of the law of a province.
However, in Canada we have territories and not only provinces. People in the territories are not included in s. 258.1(2)(b).
Section 15 of the Charter articulates that "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination."
Therefore, your s. 15 Charter rights are being violated as the people in the territories are not being subject to the same federal law as you are in Ontario, and this breach of your rights is not saved under s. 1 of the Charter.
The government has also not included the s. 33 notwithstanding clause in s. 48 of the HTA.
At no time has the Province alleged s. 253(a) was a colourable intrusion into provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights and its enactment an invalid exercise of Parliaments jurisdiction over criminal law, public safety and good government power.
It is also well-settled that merely incidental effects will not disturb the constitutionality of an otherwise intra vires law.
Thus, even if the provincial suspensions were valid its dominant purpose is to not only significantly hinder, but also eliminate the ability of the federal government to enforce s. 253(a).
It also jeopardizes the conviction of every laid impaired driving or refusal to blow charge in Canada.
Section 254(5) states;
(5) Everyone commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a demand made under this section.
Since short-term suspensions are unconstitutional and still being applied, every person in Canada (other than in Quebec as they have no short-term suspensions because they clearly understand the law) has a reasonable excuse to refuse to comply with a demand for a breath sample under s. 254 of the Criminal Code, and under s. 48 of the HTA.
Hi so I have a bizzare situation. Today I received a summons for "being the owner of a motor vehicle bearing Vehicle Identification Number ###, failed to submit the vehicle, equipment or drawn vehicle for inspection or tests as required by an officer" for a vehicle I previously owned. Apparently a violation of HTA 82(9).
The date of offense is June 15, the summons was issued on October 26th and I…
Hi, I need some help for the ticket of lmproper left turn.
When i drove my car from east to west, intending to make a left turn and stop in front of stop line. There was a car in front of me, which has turn on yellow light. The light was turning red and then I thought I cannot leave in the intersection and turned, an incoming car was runing the light and hit me. No one got hurt but both cars had…
Have a ticket in which the radar used was a Genesis VP Directional. I had downloaded the manual for a Genesis VP but I now realize that the unit is not the same so it is the wrong manual. My trial is very soon so I do not have time to ask for disclosure of the manual.
Does anyone have access to an electronic version of the manual for Genesis VP Directional?
I was pulled over today in the city of Oakville for going 75 in a 40 zone. However, I am 100 percent certain that I was going only 50 in the 40 zone. When I was pulled over, I was driving my Dad's car which I felt was the reason I was getting stopped since two teenagers driving a 2013 S Class. He asked does I know why I am being pulled over and I…
I really need help on fighting my 9 tickets i received from one police officer. Here is some background of what happened!
I was caught speeding 66km on a 40km (school zone) on January 29, 2010. I was driving my friend's car and turns out she didnt renew the validation on the vehicle and didnt leave the up to date insurance paper on the car.
Hey question that I think here's probably the best place to get the answer:
I was charged with a careless driving offence in oct, trail in early april, so as of right now my insurance record is 100% clean... except the officer did file an accident report at the scene where I was classified at fault due to it being PI (although very minor). The person I hit did not sue etc, so the insurance company…
Very much unintentionally passed a stopped bus, with sign and flashing lights. Didn't realize I had done it until I was at the end of the bus. I'll save you my sob story, but it was truly accidental. I'm generally very cautious and have a perfect driving record. Never been stopped.
While I realize if a cop had seen me that I would have gotten a ticket, there were none in sight. Though I may very…
I was recently pulled over for running a red and I wasnt able to find my wallet in the car at the time to hand over my license. I had a passport in the vehicle that he used. The wallet was in the vehicle, it just fell through the seats. (Tough to find a black leather wallet in a black/black leather truck at night).
The officer still wrote the tickets for both he signed the one ticket (failure to…
I was passing a vehicle that was going slow for me and there was an oncoming vehicle coming at me. I speed up to get around the person I was passing and the oncoming vehicle turns out to be a cop who turns around and tickets me for going 110km in a 80km zone. How does it work with passing a vehicle? Once I passed the vehicle I went back down to my original speed of just under 100. The officer…
I picked up a brand new (old stock) Fuzzbuster a while ago at auction (wopping $5!!) and I want to mount it on the dash of my old GTO as a cool accessory when I show it at car shows. But I'm not sure if it's legal or not.
Here's my thoughts:
- It is early 70's technology (x-band) so it won't detect modern police radar. That's assuming no police force uses the old x-band frequency.
Hi guys, I'm still a little in shock of getting my first traffic ticket...
On Monday afternoon, I was returning from Toronto to Ottawa on HW416, I was driving about 15 over 100 like always. Then a car came very close to me on the left lane and made me nervous, I speed up unintentionally to pass the car and change lane, but while doing that a police car pull out of the median. He was hiding in…
May i ask this question regarding transport trucks limited to 105 km/h. Moving road blocks or safety?
IMO it isnt speed that kills. I find transport trucks infact help keep the road going. With cars that choose to not move to the right and slow down the middle lane the trucks would try to pass in their passing lane therefore the slower traffic would move right.
Received a notice from the police that a motion is being put forward to adjourn upcoming trial date. Notice indicates that an officer has sworn an affidavit that the crucial witness cannot attend date trial is set for (we know there is a social engagement at 7:30 pm for the witness, trial time is 1:30 pm). This further delay is a big problem to my daughter's case. She is moving away to…
This is what happened. I was travelling west on a four lane city street that was very light with traffic. I was making a left hand turn into a wide driveway of a business. There was traffic lights about 100 yards past the driveway and were red for the east-west traffic. I was in the left lane with my signal on and there was no oncoming traffic due to the red light. I was slowed right down…
I was driving my families older car and got pulled over, and the police officer informed me my plate was dirty. He issued me a ticket of $110 for the 13(2) act and obstruct plate as the offense. He informed me that such a plate could be used to avoid red lights as well as 407 tolls, also that buying a new plate can help to lower the ticket if I fight the charge, and that he also took a picture…
I received a red light camera ticket. In the picture, you see an ambulance in front of me with flashing lights. I had moved to alleviate the traffic behind me for the emergency vehicles coming behind it.
Is this a possible defense, if so, does anyone know any good case law to justify this position?
what happens if they charge someone for driving at 151Km/hr in montreal and they put for trial, appear after some months and sadly lost the trial ?
In montreal its $300 fine and 5demerit points ...
I heard Ontario and Qubec share the information. So once the trial is over ( and when the file moved to ontario) will his car gets towed and licence get suspended for 7days (later to 30 days ) ? and he…
I got a notice in the mail that trial is set four weeks from today, so it's time to request disclosure. I have zero chance of getting an 11b since trial is less than two months after the offense date and the officer did not reduce the charge. I really want to try and create delays on the trial, to reduce the chance of the officer showing up on multiple occasions. Is there any known loop-holes…
This weekend my father was involved in an accident with a transit bus in Burlington, ON. After the police showed up he was charged with "Fail to obey stop sign" Sec. 136(1)(a). At this particular intersection there NO stop signs but there are traffic lights. There is construction going on there so one of the light posts is smaller.
Driving conditions were terribly wet and visibility was low.…
So my boyfriend and I recently started dating. I have a vehicle that was insured. Insurance cost too much and I found it was just as easy to walk to work due to how close it was. But I didn't want to get rid of my car just yet, plus I'm still making payments on it as well. When we moved into our appartment together, I had it towed to my parking spot out back.
I was making a left hand legal turn on a green light, a driver came through the lane I was supposed to be going into ran the red and hit me head on as I was turning into my lane. When the officer came he was telling me that I was racing and driving recklessly because apparently there was reports of street racing in the area. I was not charged on the scene for this but I'm scared i am going to be…
I got a ticket for failure to surrender insurance because I did not have my new insurance stubs with me, just a bunch of expired ones. My policy number has not changed, so I asked the officer to just run the policy number so I could prove that I was in fact insured. He said they don't have that ability, handed me the ticket and reminded me that my car could have been impounded.
So I'm in a bit of a pickle and would appreciate if someone could clarify something for me.
I'm less than a month away (test on April 6th) from getting my full G license, and got a speeding ticket recently. The ticket was for 49km/h over the posted limit of 100km/h on the 403 in Oakville/Halton region, but was reduced from the initial ~60km/h over.
