hey guys i need to know what the PROS (you guys) think about my situation. i will first post my questions then state what happened 1)the likely hood of getting it lowered to "following to close" or even dropped 2) how much would it affect my insurance being only 19 but with a full G , zero tickets, and doing driving school. 3) is there a recommended parralegal in ontario region within a 30-45 min drive to see that has a consistent win rate rather than going to x copper and wasting 575$ so it started like this. got up to go to work last Wednesday morning at 6:10am left the house and on my way down a slightly wavy (as in minor elevation in road up and down nothing major) country road (80km limit) i was a small distance about 200-300ft behind a flat bed sod truck (ford f 550) i was not under the influence of drugs/drinks/devices. the truck went over the final small hill that was a good 4 ft elevated at the top of the hill compared to the level road before it then slightly goes down 1-2 ft then levels out again and me being in a small bmw that isnt high up like a truck i cant see over the incline until im right on the top of it. this was at 6:45 now @ the time of the accident i was going 85km when i went over the hill and saw the truck about 100-ft away with his brakes on but he was still moving . so i started to apply my brakes lightly thinking he was just slowing and then realized this guy put his brakes on heavily and after the accident i realized he was trying to make his turn to the right into a sod field that has a small cut out between the 2 ft high bush running down the road (not paved or anything just gravel) that you cant reallly even see until your like 30 ft away from it. and he WASNT signalling he just had his brakes on. so unfortunately i didnt react the best and because im still going 65-70km i decided it be better to try and swerve out of his way than hit him square on, but it happened so quickly running down 85-100 ft at 65-70kmh i clipped his back left/ my front right and we had a connection you could say. my airbag didn't deploy none of them did and i wacked the top of my head of my wheel i was spinning and in shock my hands had just punched the front odometer display and my right hand/thumb was just over extended on the manual shifter and i didnt feel a thing until it was all over 3 hours later in my bed. my issues are when the officer had his "report" i said i was ok even though my hands were shaking vigorously and he even said you sure you dont want an ambulance which was stupid considering im in shock and he knew it so how would i know whats best for me . but this was about 40-45 min after the accident he took his report and he said how fast were you going and i said 85 and later i looked at the report and saw it showed both statements and he saidi hit going 85 and the other guy was going 15 . I HIT GOING 65 not 85 and i dont know how to fix that error maybe in court it can be fought or waved becasue of shock and trama. but ya thats everything that happened so please ANSWER ASAP REGARDING WHAT TO SAY TO PARALEGAL or who to go to if anybody know any good places or what my odds are IT WASNT CARELESS I WAS PAYING ATTENTION it was merly bad timing and perception due to the other driver breaking hard and me coming over the hill and not having time to react and finaly i know some insurance drops people in cases like this and what on avergae does it go up by 100-200% or in general having that charge but the odds of me getting following to close i think are better than keeping this charge and a couple paralegal places i called all said could possibly be dropped even . thanks any help will be rewarded
hey guys i need to know what the PROS (you guys) think about my situation. i will first post my questions then state what happened
1)the likely hood of getting it lowered to "following to close" or even dropped
2) how much would it affect my insurance being only 19 but with a full G , zero tickets, and doing driving school.
3) is there a recommended parralegal in ontario region within a 30-45 min drive to see that has a consistent win rate rather than going to x copper and wasting 575$
so it started like this. got up to go to work last Wednesday morning at 6:10am left the house and on my way down a slightly wavy (as in minor elevation in road up and down nothing major) country road (80km limit) i was a small distance about 200-300ft behind a flat bed sod truck (ford f 550) i was not under the influence of drugs/drinks/devices. the truck went over the final small hill that was a good 4 ft elevated at the top of the hill compared to the level road before it then slightly goes down 1-2 ft then levels out again and me being in a small bmw that isnt high up like a truck i cant see over the incline until im right on the top of it. this was at 6:45 now @ the time of the accident i was going 85km when i went over the hill and saw the truck about 100-ft away with his brakes on but he was still moving . so i started to apply my brakes lightly thinking he was just slowing and then realized this guy put his brakes on heavily and after the accident i realized he was trying to make his turn to the right into a sod field that has a small cut out between the 2 ft high bush running down the road (not paved or anything just gravel) that you cant reallly even see until your like 30 ft away from it. and he WASNT signalling he just had his brakes on. so unfortunately i didnt react the best and because im still going 65-70km i decided it be better to try and swerve out of his way than hit him square on, but it happened so quickly running down 85-100 ft at 65-70kmh i clipped his back left/ my front right and we had a connection you could say. my airbag didn't deploy none of them did and i wacked the top of my head of my wheel
i was spinning and in shock my hands had just punched the front odometer display and my right hand/thumb was just over extended on the manual shifter and i didnt feel a thing until it was all over 3 hours later in my bed. my issues are when the officer had his "report" i said i was ok even though my hands were shaking vigorously and he even said you sure you dont want an ambulance which was stupid considering im in shock and he knew it so how would i know whats best for me . but this was about 40-45 min after the accident he took his report and he said how fast were you going and i said 85 and later i looked at the report and saw it showed both statements and he saidi hit going 85 and the other guy was going 15 . I HIT GOING 65 not 85 and i dont know how to fix that error maybe in court it can be fought or waved becasue of shock and trama. but ya thats everything that happened so please ANSWER ASAP REGARDING WHAT TO SAY TO PARALEGAL or who to go to if anybody know any good places or what my odds are IT WASNT CARELESS I WAS PAYING ATTENTION it was merly bad timing and perception due to the other driver breaking hard and me coming over the hill and not having time to react
and finaly i know some insurance drops people in cases like this and what on avergae does it go up by 100-200% or in general having that charge but the odds of me getting following to close i think are better than keeping this charge and a couple paralegal places i called all said could possibly be dropped even . thanks any help will be rewarded
Careless Driving is the go-to charge when it comes to rear-end accidents; Ontario police overcharge with careless, anticipating a plea to a lessor offence. The error with respect to speeds is not going to make or break this case; you can contact the police station and ask that they amend/change it from 85 to 65. The officer will not appear at your trial date, the other driver will appear as the crown witness. The other driver will be testifying as to what happened. They won't know what your speeds you were going, and only that you made contact. Were you wearing your seat belt? Does your seat belts tighten during sudden acceleration and stops? I'm surprised that your head hit the steering wheel. 1) Highly likely, that it will be reduced. The crown has a number of charges they can reduce to: S141(5) Left turn ‑ fail to afford reasonable opportunity to avoid collision - $110 + 3pts S158(1) Follow too closely - $110 + 4pts 2) If you're found guilty of S130 Careless Driving, your current policy most likely will be cancelled. You will have to go to Facility. Which will be tens of thousands per year. 3) Ontario region is very big. There will be paralegal offices near the court house where you have to file the ticket for trial, you can also search online. As long as the paralegal is licensed, they should be able to do a decent job. If you're just looking to cut a deal and get the charges reduced, you can go about this on your own. The charges can be dropped if the other driver fails to appear at your trial date; similar to a police no-show. I think it's in your best interest to retain legal counsel and let them handle this.
Careless Driving is the go-to charge when it comes to rear-end accidents; Ontario police overcharge with careless, anticipating a plea to a lessor offence.
The error with respect to speeds is not going to make or break this case; you can contact the police station and ask that they amend/change it from 85 to 65.
The officer will not appear at your trial date, the other driver will appear as the crown witness. The other driver will be testifying as to what happened. They won't know what your speeds you were going, and only that you made contact.
Were you wearing your seat belt? Does your seat belts tighten during sudden acceleration and stops? I'm surprised that your head hit the steering wheel.
1) Highly likely, that it will be reduced. The crown has a number of charges they can reduce to:
S141(5) Left turn ‑ fail to afford reasonable opportunity to avoid collision - $110 + 3pts
S158(1) Follow too closely - $110 + 4pts
2) If you're found guilty of S130 Careless Driving, your current policy most likely will be cancelled. You will have to go to Facility. Which will be tens of thousands per year.
3) Ontario region is very big. There will be paralegal offices near the court house where you have to file the ticket for trial, you can also search online. As long as the paralegal is licensed, they should be able to do a decent job.
If you're just looking to cut a deal and get the charges reduced, you can go about this on your own. The charges can be dropped if the other driver fails to appear at your trial date; similar to a police no-show.
I think it's in your best interest to retain legal counsel and let them handle this.
hey thanks for the reply helps a bunch with stress. i honestly think the s141(5) would be the end cause or what i wil go for that is exactly what mine was so i will be aiming for that one .2) i understand that the odds of being dropped are high so im going to make the xcopper who my mom went with (even though i dot want to but hes a xcop and a parallegal) ironic even though i didnt want to go with them :P and is there anything you can recommend i bring up or i can use to my advantage for this. finally as you said above the "police officer wont show" 1) why is that is it becasue its not a big deal to him and he doesnt want to waste his time 2) if he doesnt show is that like what you said about the witness being a no show thus dropping the ticket or aslong as the witness shows its still fine to continue with the trial. 3) so like i said previous if the witness doesnt show but the cop does is it still a case close or visa versa./ doesnt the judge just move the date ahead one time to try and reschedule and if the other guys dont show up the second time then ITS canned. ?? thanks mate
iFly55 wrote:
Careless Driving is the go-to charge when it comes to rear-end accidents; Ontario police overcharge with careless, anticipating a plea to a lessor offence.
The error with respect to speeds is not going to make or break this case; you can contact the police station and ask that they amend/change it from 85 to 65.
The officer will not appear at your trial date, the other driver will appear as the crown witness. The other driver will be testifying as to what happened. They won't know what your speeds you were going, and only that you made contact.
Were you wearing your seat belt? Does your seat belts tighten during sudden acceleration and stops? I'm surprised that your head hit the steering wheel.
1) Highly likely, that it will be reduced. The crown has a number of charges they can reduce to:
S141(5) Left turn ‑ fail to afford reasonable opportunity to avoid collision - $110 + 3pts
S158(1) Follow too closely - $110 + 4pts
2) If you're found guilty of S130 Careless Driving, your current policy most likely will be cancelled. You will have to go to Facility. Which will be tens of thousands per year.
3) Ontario region is very big. There will be paralegal offices near the court house where you have to file the ticket for trial, you can also search online. As long as the paralegal is licensed, they should be able to do a decent job.
If you're just looking to cut a deal and get the charges reduced, you can go about this on your own. The charges can be dropped if the other driver fails to appear at your trial date; similar to a police no-show.
I think it's in your best interest to retain legal counsel and let them handle this.
hey thanks for the reply helps a bunch with stress. i honestly think the s141(5) would be the end cause or what i wil go for that is exactly what mine was so i will be aiming for that one .2) i understand that the odds of being dropped are high so im going to make the xcopper who my mom went with (even though i dot want to but hes a xcop and a parallegal) ironic even though i didnt want to go with them and is there anything you can recommend i bring up or i can use to my advantage for this.
finally as you said above the "police officer wont show" 1) why is that is it becasue its not a big deal to him and he doesnt want to waste his time 2) if he doesnt show is that like what you said about the witness being a no show thus dropping the ticket or aslong as the witness shows its still fine to continue with the trial. 3) so like i said previous if the witness doesnt show but the cop does is it still a case close or visa versa./ doesnt the judge just move the date ahead one time to try and reschedule and if the other guys dont show up the second time then ITS canned. ?? thanks mate
They're not going to let you plea to 141(5). The evidence in the case doesn't support that charge. They may offer 148(5) fail to turn out to the left to avoid collision. Follow too close may be a stretch as well. Based on your own evidence that the truck was 100 feet way when you saw it. The officer is usually subpoenaed for collision trials. They may have measurements, tire marks, or other road evenidence to testify to. If a witness doesn't show up, the JP has several options. Dismiss the charge, new court date, proceed with any witness present. Even is during a warrant for the arrest of the witness.
They're not going to let you plea to 141(5). The evidence in the case doesn't support that charge. They may offer 148(5) fail to turn out to the left to avoid collision.
Follow too close may be a stretch as well. Based on your own evidence that the truck was 100 feet way when you saw it.
The officer is usually subpoenaed for collision trials. They may have measurements, tire marks, or other road evenidence to testify to.
If a witness doesn't show up, the JP has several options. Dismiss the charge, new court date, proceed with any witness present. Even is during a warrant for the arrest of the witness.
[quote="Decatur"]They're not going to let you plea to 141(5). The evidence in the case doesn't support that charge. They may offer 148(5) fail to turn out to the left to avoid collision. Follow too close may be a stretch as well. Based on your own evidence that the truck was 100 feet way when you saw it. The officer is usually subpoenaed for collision trials. They may have measurements, tire marks, or other road evenidence to testify to. If a witness doesn't show up, the JP has several options. Dismiss the charge, new court date, proceed with any witness present. Even is during a warrant for the arrest of the witness.[/quote the only measurement they took was the closest intersection which was 365 metres down the road thats it no pictures or anything else taken and im just saying around 100ft from the time i got to the hill to react. and fully say he was stopping it was a judgement call that was unlucky but wasnt careless so ya i looked up what you said 148(5) so how many points or a ticket is that 148(5) and ya i wasnt tail gating this guy so i wouldnt get the follow to close i was just sudjesting what happened. and my main question if the POLICE OFFICER doesnt show up is it dropped or like you said a witness is both the officer and the other person in the accident ??
[quote="Decatur"]They're not going to let you plea to 141(5). The evidence in the case doesn't support that charge. They may offer 148(5) fail to turn out to the left to avoid collision.
Follow too close may be a stretch as well. Based on your own evidence that the truck was 100 feet way when you saw it.
The officer is usually subpoenaed for collision trials. They may have measurements, tire marks, or other road evenidence to testify to.
If a witness doesn't show up, the JP has several options. Dismiss the charge, new court date, proceed with any witness present. Even is during a warrant for the arrest of the witness.[/quote
the only measurement they took was the closest intersection which was 365 metres down the road thats it no pictures or anything else taken and im just saying around 100ft from the time i got to the hill to react. and fully say he was stopping it was a judgement call that was unlucky but wasnt careless so ya i looked up what you said 148(5) so how many points or a ticket is that 148(5) and ya i wasnt tail gating this guy so i wouldnt get the follow to close i was just sudjesting what happened. and my main question if the POLICE OFFICER doesnt show up is it dropped or like you said a witness is both the officer and the other person in the accident ??
@Decatur is correct, my mistake... the amended charged would be 148(5) and not 141(5). S148(5) carries two demerit points: http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/940339 Unless the major collision bureau was involved and an accident reconstruction done following your accident, and as Decatur described they took measurements/pictures/evidence/dash-cam; downloaded data from the vehicles. If the officer did not do any of these, the officer has no evidence to provide the courts as to what happened. I've sat in many careless driving trials for minor rear-end collisions; i have yet to see an officer appear for any of these. A lot of them get withdrawn because the other driver fails to appear or when they do show up... they're plead to amended charges. The one time I've seen them proceed to trial, the other driver made conflicting testimony and ended up being unreliable... defendant found not-guilty. Officer can only provide evidence to the state of the vehicles after the accident; he can't provide hearsay evidence of what you or the other driver told him. Based on the type of collision you described, I believe the officer will not show. It's going to be up to the other driver to carry this case for the crown.
@Decatur is correct, my mistake... the amended charged would be 148(5) and not 141(5).
Unless the major collision bureau was involved and an accident reconstruction done following your accident, and as Decatur described they took measurements/pictures/evidence/dash-cam; downloaded data from the vehicles. If the officer did not do any of these, the officer has no evidence to provide the courts as to what happened.
I've sat in many careless driving trials for minor rear-end collisions; i have yet to see an officer appear for any of these. A lot of them get withdrawn because the other driver fails to appear or when they do show up... they're plead to amended charges. The one time I've seen them proceed to trial, the other driver made conflicting testimony and ended up being unreliable... defendant found not-guilty.
Officer can only provide evidence to the state of the vehicles after the accident; he can't provide hearsay evidence of what you or the other driver told him.
Based on the type of collision you described, I believe the officer will not show. It's going to be up to the other driver to carry this case for the crown.
ok thats way better than loosing 6 or 4 ill talk to my paralegal for that one. and no he didnt take pictures with a camera or aything just a basic report and let us go after that, my car has no collision so i got it towed to my mechanics nothing to be reconstructed and no major collision bureau or anything and there was two officers at the scene but i guess the only one that matters is the one that made the report correct?? the other one was just a traffic helper more or lss and wrote me the ticket. pretty much the one guy gave me a ticket and the other wrote the report does that mean both have to show at the trial date or just one of them ?? and nobody was injured or ambulance called just the accident and they left after. but ya once again though only measurement taken was the one to the closet street being 1200 ft away but no pictures with cameras or anything just a ticket and thats it. so my odds are looking pretty good then to get it lowered down to the other charge with 2 points do you know how much the ticket carries aswell like 100$$ 1) would the other charge 148(5) make my insurance go up dramatically still or just like 15% or 50% not like 200% with the careless charge. 2) do both officers have to arrive in court since one wrote a ticket and one the report (which is more important in this case) 3) how much is the ticket for 148(5) thanks
iFly55 wrote:
@Decatur is correct, my mistake... the amended charged would be 148(5) and not 141(5).
Unless the major collision bureau was involved and an accident reconstruction done following your accident, and as Decatur described they took measurements/pictures/evidence/dash-cam; downloaded data from the vehicles. If the officer did not do any of these, the officer has no evidence to provide the courts as to what happened.
I've sat in many careless driving trials for minor rear-end collisions; i have yet to see an officer appear for any of these. A lot of them get withdrawn because the other driver fails to appear or when they do show up... they're plead to amended charges. The one time I've seen them proceed to trial, the other driver made conflicting testimony and ended up being unreliable... defendant found not-guilty.
Officer can only provide evidence to the state of the vehicles after the accident; he can't provide hearsay evidence of what you or the other driver told him.
Based on the type of collision you described, I believe the officer will not show. It's going to be up to the other driver to carry this case for the crown.
ok thats way better than loosing 6 or 4 ill talk to my paralegal for that one. and no he didnt take pictures with a camera or aything just a basic report and let us go after that, my car has no collision so i got it towed to my mechanics nothing to be reconstructed and no major collision bureau or anything and there was two officers at the scene but i guess the only one that matters is the one that made the report correct?? the other one was just a traffic helper more or lss and wrote me the ticket. pretty much the one guy gave me a ticket and the other wrote the report does that mean both have to show at the trial date or just one of them ?? and nobody was injured or ambulance called just the accident and they left after. but ya once again though only measurement taken was the one to the closet street being 1200 ft away but no pictures with cameras or anything just a ticket and thats it. so my odds are looking pretty good then to get it lowered down to the other charge with 2 points do you know how much the ticket carries aswell like 100$$
1) would the other charge 148(5) make my insurance go up dramatically still or just like 15% or 50% not like 200% with the careless charge.
2) do both officers have to arrive in court since one wrote a ticket and one the report (which is more important in this case)
I don't believe that either officer will have to appear to secure a Careless Driving conviction. The crown only needs the other driver's testimony to convict you of Careless Driving. Officers' appearances would be extra, and not essential. Maybe the one that did the measurement could appear and testify to that. Set Fine: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/how-do- ... hedule-43/ Victim Surcharge: http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/000161 Court Fee: http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900945 S148(5) carries a $110 fine. It should be considered a minor conviction, similar to speeding +15km/hr. Set Fine: $85 Victim Surcharge: $20 Court Fee: $5 Total Fine: $110
I don't believe that either officer will have to appear to secure a Careless Driving conviction.
The crown only needs the other driver's testimony to convict you of Careless Driving. Officers' appearances would be extra, and not essential. Maybe the one that did the measurement could appear and testify to that.
ok thanks i understand fully now. so is it bad to call the other guy and say dont show up lol i have his phone #. but are they obligated to like do most witness in this case he was out nothing im out my car and it wasnt even his truck it was a work truck so he didnt loos anything but a hours work even though his brother owns the company so i think hell be ok :P but even if the other guy is in court and says what happened and then as said above i would be charged with the 148(5) becasue there were no witnesses to confirm i wasnt paying attention or anything not saying i wasnt but you cant keep that charge unless there is actual proof i was careless . realistaiclly it sounds like ill get that other charge because its not like anybody was hurt. no major collision beaurea as you said or whatever so from your prespective as what happened above what are my chances pretty high to get the other charge. 2) and the odds of my charge sticking is what ?? even if he shows up in court hell say oh i saw the guy coming in from behind me coming in quick and he clipped my back left. no dashcams or any witnesses other than car damage.
iFly55 wrote:
I don't believe that either officer will have to appear to secure a Careless Driving conviction.
The crown only needs the other driver's testimony to convict you of Careless Driving. Officers' appearances would be extra, and not essential. Maybe the one that did the measurement could appear and testify to that.
S148(5) carries a $110 fine. It should be considered a minor conviction, similar to speeding +15km/hr.
Set Fine: $85
Victim Surcharge: $20
Court Fee: $5
Total Fine: $110
ok thanks i understand fully now. so is it bad to call the other guy and say dont show up lol i have his phone #. but are they obligated to like do most witness in this case he was out nothing im out my car and it wasnt even his truck it was a work truck so he didnt loos anything but a hours work even though his brother owns the company so i think hell be ok but even if the other guy is in court and says what happened and then as said above i would be charged with the 148(5) becasue there were no witnesses to confirm i wasnt paying attention or anything not saying i wasnt but you cant keep that charge unless there is actual proof i was careless . realistaiclly it sounds like ill get that other charge because its not like anybody was hurt. no major collision beaurea as you said or whatever so from your prespective as what happened above what are my chances pretty high to get the other charge. 2) and the odds of my charge sticking is what ?? even if he shows up in court hell say oh i saw the guy coming in from behind me coming in quick and he clipped my back left. no dashcams or any witnesses other than car damage.
Actually, the officer absolutely needs to attend. Only they can properly identify you. Without that, the prosecutor fails to meet its case. Its weird that someone would even suggest that the officer is not essential; its not possible to prove the case otherwise since it fails on the ID element. By the way, the prosecutor will only offer you Fail to Turn Out to the Left to Avoid a Collision if in fact there was another lane available to you. It also doesn't apply to the 'right' side. So, if there was no lane available to your left, they'll likely just offer you Follow Too Closely-----which is an included offence in Careless Driving anyway. The fact that you rear-ended the truck without any other witnesses is actually quite common. The skid marks and way you hit the vehicle will be quite self-explanatory. Don't even think about lying that he was reversing on the highway and backed in to you. You'd be surprised how much evidence can come out at your 'criminal' trial for perjury. Once your comments are on the record, you'll be bound to them. If they suspect you are lying, they now will be better able to investigate any potential security camera's in the area, eye witnesses, on-board car diagnostics, cellphone gps, car gps, etc. You'd be amazed what sorts of evidence that isn't used in a simple Provincial Offences trial is later found for a criminal-related case. Don't make life more difficult for yourself! :wink:
Actually, the officer absolutely needs to attend. Only they can properly identify you. Without that, the prosecutor fails to meet its case. Its weird that someone would even suggest that the officer is not essential; its not possible to prove the case otherwise since it fails on the ID element.
By the way, the prosecutor will only offer you Fail to Turn Out to the Left to Avoid a Collision if in fact there was another lane available to you. It also doesn't apply to the 'right' side. So, if there was no lane available to your left, they'll likely just offer you Follow Too Closely-----which is an included offence in Careless Driving anyway.
The fact that you rear-ended the truck without any other witnesses is actually quite common. The skid marks and way you hit the vehicle will be quite self-explanatory. Don't even think about lying that he was reversing on the highway and backed in to you. You'd be surprised how much evidence can come out at your 'criminal' trial for perjury. Once your comments are on the record, you'll be bound to them. If they suspect you are lying, they now will be better able to investigate any potential security camera's in the area, eye witnesses, on-board car diagnostics, cellphone gps, car gps, etc. You'd be amazed what sorts of evidence that isn't used in a simple Provincial Offences trial is later found for a criminal-related case. Don't make life more difficult for yourself!
so what you are saying is that if the officers dont show up and even if the witness does the case is still dropped because there is no official legal identification it was me ?? what happens if the one offcer shows up who wrote the report but the one who wrote me the ticket doesnt ?? is my ticket still dropped becasue the one who wrote it didnt show up . and it is as i said above he wasnt reversing or doing anything stupid he just wasnt signalling and put his brakes on heavy probably to make his turn on time and i had a lapsein judgement with how far he was and how quck it comes up and took my foot off the brake and then tried to overtake to the left since there was no oncoming traffic but that didnt work out well apparently so it happened on airport road mount hope ontario. where there is a solid yellow line down the entire road even though you can see for the most part what is coming and where my acident happened there was plenty of space like a good 1km i could see ahead of the oncoming but i do know you can pass and cross a solid yellow aslong as there is no oncoming traffic and that there is no traffic ahead of the vehicle you are overtaking which in my case was safe. there is just one lane going east and one going west. the right "lane " wouldve been me going into a ditch . and yes as the damage was my front right got clipped there are NO ccameras no GPS no measurements other than the closest intersection which was 1300ft down the road thats the only thing he measured with the car he didnt take out a camera or anything. or measureing devices. no eye witnesses nobody came across us until 2 minutes after who wasnt on the road when it happened and there was no houses around just trees on each side so just him and me . what happens if he shows up to court but neither officer does as i thin ki said eariler does it still continue or without the police officer the case is dropped as thereis no official was to id me. and when you said if there "was no lane availabel to my left" is that like a highway type lane where each side east and west bound has two lanes or in my case where it was a sinlg lane each direction you can still cross it aslong as it is safe to do so and no oncoming traffic and no possible risk to the driver you are overtaking. thanks man
highwaystar wrote:
Actually, the officer absolutely needs to attend. Only they can properly identify you. Without that, the prosecutor fails to meet its case. Its weird that someone would even suggest that the officer is not essential; its not possible to prove the case otherwise since it fails on the ID element.
By the way, the prosecutor will only offer you Fail to Turn Out to the Left to Avoid a Collision if in fact there was another lane available to you. It also doesn't apply to the 'right' side. So, if there was no lane available to your left, they'll likely just offer you Follow Too Closely-----which is an included offence in Careless Driving anyway.
The fact that you rear-ended the truck without any other witnesses is actually quite common. The skid marks and way you hit the vehicle will be quite self-explanatory. Don't even think about lying that he was reversing on the highway and backed in to you. You'd be surprised how much evidence can come out at your 'criminal' trial for perjury. Once your comments are on the record, you'll be bound to them. If they suspect you are lying, they now will be better able to investigate any potential security camera's in the area, eye witnesses, on-board car diagnostics, cellphone gps, car gps, etc. You'd be amazed what sorts of evidence that isn't used in a simple Provincial Offences trial is later found for a criminal-related case. Don't make life more difficult for yourself!
so what you are saying is that if the officers dont show up and even if the witness does the case is still dropped because there is no official legal identification it was me ?? what happens if the one offcer shows up who wrote the report but the one who wrote me the ticket doesnt ?? is my ticket still dropped becasue the one who wrote it didnt show up . and it is as i said above he wasnt reversing or doing anything stupid he just wasnt signalling and put his brakes on heavy probably to make his turn on time and i had a lapsein judgement with how far he was and how quck it comes up and took my foot off the brake and then tried to overtake to the left since there was no oncoming traffic but that didnt work out well apparently
so it happened on airport road mount hope ontario. where there is a solid yellow line down the entire road even though you can see for the most part what is coming and where my acident happened there was plenty of space like a good 1km i could see ahead of the oncoming but i do know you can pass and cross a solid yellow aslong as there is no oncoming traffic and that there is no traffic ahead of the vehicle you are overtaking which in my case was safe. there is just one lane going east and one going west. the right "lane " wouldve been me going into a ditch . and yes as the damage was my front right got clipped there are NO ccameras no GPS no measurements other than the closest intersection which was 1300ft down the road thats the only thing he measured with the car he didnt take out a camera or anything. or measureing devices. no eye witnesses nobody came across us until 2 minutes after who wasnt on the road when it happened and there was no houses around just trees on each side so just him and me .
what happens if he shows up to court but neither officer does as i thin ki said eariler does it still continue or without the police officer the case is dropped as thereis no official was to id me.
and when you said if there "was no lane availabel to my left" is that like a highway type lane where each side east and west bound has two lanes or in my case where it was a sinlg lane each direction you can still cross it aslong as it is safe to do so and no oncoming traffic and no possible risk to the driver you are overtaking. thanks man
First off, if you're already at trial, its because you didn't take any offer----pretty risky move on your part. However, if you ARE at trial and neither officer shows up, then the prosecutor can't make out their case since they can't properly identify you. If they don't get an adjournment, then the case will undoubtedly be dismissed at that point. However, that is seldom happens since officers generally DO show up. BTW, the officer that IS essential to the matter is the one that identified you; not necessarily the one who wrote you the ticket. Its the one who actually asked for your driver's license and reviewed it. Even though other officers may have relied upon the ID of such officer, it would be hearsay if they tried to say they identified you----since they didn't, the other officer did! So, again, if the officer that identifies you doesn't attend, if the prosecution doesn't get an adjournment, they won't be able to establish a case against you. As for the fail to turn out to the left to avoid a collision, the left lane must be in the same driving direction as you are going. Even though there may be a lane to your left available, if its for on-coming traffic, then you won't qualify for that charge. It sounds like in your case, you don't qualify. So, the only charge that seems to fit for you is Follow Too Closely, which I said before is actually an included offence within Careless Driving. So, even if they can't prove careless driving, the court could still convict you of Follow Too Closely.
First off, if you're already at trial, its because you didn't take any offer----pretty risky move on your part. However, if you ARE at trial and neither officer shows up, then the prosecutor can't make out their case since they can't properly identify you. If they don't get an adjournment, then the case will undoubtedly be dismissed at that point. However, that is seldom happens since officers generally DO show up.
BTW, the officer that IS essential to the matter is the one that identified you; not necessarily the one who wrote you the ticket. Its the one who actually asked for your driver's license and reviewed it. Even though other officers may have relied upon the ID of such officer, it would be hearsay if they tried to say they identified you----since they didn't, the other officer did!
So, again, if the officer that identifies you doesn't attend, if the prosecution doesn't get an adjournment, they won't be able to establish a case against you.
As for the fail to turn out to the left to avoid a collision, the left lane must be in the same driving direction as you are going. Even though there may be a lane to your left available, if its for on-coming traffic, then you won't qualify for that charge. It sounds like in your case, you don't qualify. So, the only charge that seems to fit for you is Follow Too Closely, which I said before is actually an included offence within Careless Driving. So, even if they can't prove careless driving, the court could still convict you of Follow Too Closely.
nonono im going to parallegal tomorrow i havent taken any offer yet or choosen anything its been 5 days only it happened last wednesday thats why im asking what i am to be prepared im not in trial yet sorry if i made it seem like i was or said something but im not :P and the paralegal i talked to said it would qualify the fact there was a lane there its not like its a solid white line ? not being a d*ck by saying this but are you one you seem to know what your talking about but i dont think she could say i do qualify for that charge randomly unless she knew what she was talking about. i need to get a minor offense or i will be dropped i already talked to insurance with my plan if i get a serious charge like driving to close or dangerous driving theyll drop me. and i just went over all the info on the ticket the one who wrote me the ticket was the one who asked for my info and stuff so as you said hes the important one. but i know it might not mean alot but i reviewed the vehicle collision report and he put the wrong car model down i own a 2000 bmw 323i he put down 2000 bmw 3i2 ??? does this qualify for wrong info on report or ticket or whatever or it doesnt matter since the info n the ticket was correct?? the paper im referring to is the one they give you for a personal copy or whatever i have all my info on it and then all the other drivers aswell. is this an imporatnt piece of info where i can fight he put the wrong info down or no ?? thanks so there is no other charges or anything i can fight for id rather save 600$ if the end result is a serious charge and not go to a paralegal. since nomatter what its a serious charge in the end doesnt matter on my end either way for 3 years its on there and im screwed . but are you sure it has to be both lanes on the same side where did you read or see that could you give me a reference. becasue the majority of roads in the city or in country are all one way so i find it hard that in this case the "failure to move to the left to avoid collosion" would only apply to a double lane road?? UPDATE I FOUND THIS read the middle part ill put it in read (5) Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaking another vehicle or equestrian shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision with the vehicle or equestrian overtaken, and the person overtaken is not required to leave more than one-half of the roadway free. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (5). it says so far as may be necessary.....as in aslong as i do it legally on any road it will be fine doesnt say anywhere it has to be 2 lane road or single just says out to left so far AS MAY BE NECESSARY. so am, i not in the clear then ??? and qualify for the charge ?
highwaystar wrote:
First off, if you're already at trial, its because you didn't take any offer----pretty risky move on your part. However, if you ARE at trial and neither officer shows up, then the prosecutor can't make out their case since they can't properly identify you. If they don't get an adjournment, then the case will undoubtedly be dismissed at that point. However, that is seldom happens since officers generally DO show up.
BTW, the officer that IS essential to the matter is the one that identified you; not necessarily the one who wrote you the ticket. Its the one who actually asked for your driver's license and reviewed it. Even though other officers may have relied upon the ID of such officer, it would be hearsay if they tried to say they identified you----since they didn't, the other officer did!
So, again, if the officer that identifies you doesn't attend, if the prosecution doesn't get an adjournment, they won't be able to establish a case against you.
As for the fail to turn out to the left to avoid a collision, the left lane must be in the same driving direction as you are going. Even though there may be a lane to your left available, if its for on-coming traffic, then you won't qualify for that charge. It sounds like in your case, you don't qualify. So, the only charge that seems to fit for you is Follow Too Closely, which I said before is actually an included offence within Careless Driving. So, even if they can't prove careless driving, the court could still convict you of Follow Too Closely.
nonono im going to parallegal tomorrow i havent taken any offer yet or choosen anything its been 5 days only it happened last wednesday thats why im asking what i am to be prepared im not in trial yet sorry if i made it seem like i was or said something but im not and the paralegal i talked to said it would qualify the fact there was a lane there its not like its a solid white line ? not being a d*ck by saying this but are you one you seem to know what your talking about but i dont think she could say i do qualify for that charge randomly unless she knew what she was talking about. i need to get a minor offense or i will be dropped i already talked to insurance with my plan if i get a serious charge like driving to close or dangerous driving theyll drop me. and i just went over all the info on the ticket the one who wrote me the ticket was the one who asked for my info and stuff so as you said hes the important one. but i know it might not mean alot but i reviewed the vehicle collision report and he put the wrong car model down i own a 2000 bmw 323i
he put down 2000 bmw 3i2 ??? does this qualify for wrong info on report or ticket or whatever or it doesnt matter since the info n the ticket was correct??
the paper im referring to is the one they give you for a personal copy or whatever i have all my info on it and then all the other drivers aswell. is this an imporatnt piece of info where i can fight he put the wrong info down or no ?? thanks so there is no other charges or anything i can fight for id rather save 600$ if the end result is a serious charge and not go to a paralegal. since nomatter what its a serious charge in the end doesnt matter on my end either way for 3 years its on there and im screwed . but are you sure it has to be both lanes on the same side where did you read or see that could you give me a reference. becasue the majority of roads in the city or in country are all one way so i find it hard that in this case the "failure to move to the left to avoid collosion" would only apply to a double lane road??
UPDATE I FOUND THIS read the middle part ill put it in read
(5) Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaking another vehicle or equestrian shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision with the vehicle or equestrian overtaken, and the person overtaken is not required to leave more than one-half of the roadway free. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (5).
it says so far as may be necessary.....as in aslong as i do it legally on any road it will be fine doesnt say anywhere it has to be 2 lane road or single just says out to left so far AS MAY BE NECESSARY. so am, i not in the clear then ??? and qualify for the charge ?
Last edited by badtiming on Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
as the other fellow just said i wont qualify for this charge becasue it was a one way road in each direction east and west is this true where is there documentation to verify this?? the majority of roads unless its a major road or highway are usually single lane atleast in the country and 99% of city roads through surverys and towns?? and he said i would only qualify for follow to close but i wasnt following to close at all im 300ft back until i came over the hil then i hit him i wasnt close to him at all its not like there going to offer me a lessor charge simply because i dont qualify for a lower charge because follow to close has nothing to do with my accident its just a charge that is higher than failure to turn to the left . ASLONG AS IT IS A MINOR charge and not a MAJOR OR SERIOUS i can keep insurance with my company. WHEN IS A CHARGE different between a minor and a major like is a 3 demerit point a major?? what charge is above failure to turn to the left 148(5) but still below follow to close there has to be one thats 3 points or whatever
Decatur wrote:
They're not going to let you plea to 141(5). The evidence in the case doesn't support that charge. They may offer 148(5) fail to turn out to the left to avoid collision.
Follow too close may be a stretch as well. Based on your own evidence that the truck was 100 feet way when you saw it.
The officer is usually subpoenaed for collision trials. They may have measurements, tire marks, or other road evenidence to testify to.
If a witness doesn't show up, the JP has several options. Dismiss the charge, new court date, proceed with any witness present. Even is during a warrant for the arrest of the witness.
as the other fellow just said i wont qualify for this charge becasue it was a one way road in each direction east and west is this true where is there documentation to verify this?? the majority of roads unless its a major road or highway are usually single lane atleast in the country and 99% of city roads through surverys and towns??
and he said i would only qualify for follow to close but i wasnt following to close at all im 300ft back until i came over the hil then i hit him i wasnt close to him at all its not like there going to offer me a lessor charge simply because i dont qualify for a lower charge because follow to close has nothing to do with my accident its just a charge that is higher than failure to turn to the left . ASLONG AS IT IS A MINOR charge and not a MAJOR OR SERIOUS i can keep insurance with my company. WHEN IS A CHARGE different between a minor and a major like is a 3 demerit point a major?? what charge is above failure to turn to the left 148(5) but still below follow to close there has to be one thats 3 points or whatever
Demerit points have nothing to do with whether a charge is considered minor or major by insurance. Insurance companies have their own policies on how to make that determination. Ask your insurance company if they can give you a list. The fact that both the police officer AND the other driver have to show up to testify is a bonus in this case. The police officer will 99.9% of the time be there, but the other driver is more of a 50/50 thing. Remember also that you do NOT need to testify against yourself. Most people make the mistake of trying to tell their side of the story, which ends up putting the final nail in their own coffin. Yes, there are some times that you should testify, but usually you should not. And everything you say above leads me to say that you should NOT testify as you will just incriminate yourself. Read this thread: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7032.html Then you should probably read this one about representing yourself: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7039.html And with regards to fighting Careless Driving charge: Look at this thread and scroll down to about the 12 post where it mentions R v Hollyoake 2010 ONCJ 578 http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7122.html
Demerit points have nothing to do with whether a charge is considered minor or major by insurance. Insurance companies have their own policies on how to make that determination. Ask your insurance company if they can give you a list.
The fact that both the police officer AND the other driver have to show up to testify is a bonus in this case. The police officer will 99.9% of the time be there, but the other driver is more of a 50/50 thing.
Remember also that you do NOT need to testify against yourself. Most people make the mistake of trying to tell their side of the story, which ends up putting the final nail in their own coffin. Yes, there are some times that you should testify, but usually you should not. And everything you say above leads me to say that you should NOT testify as you will just incriminate yourself.
Section 148(5) deals with overtaking cars. Its aim is actually to require that you pass on the left. However, prosecutors commonly use that section as a means to negotiate down from careless driving or follow too closely interpreting it as a 'lane change' section as oppose to an 'overtaking' section. Unfortunately though, many jurisdictions interpret it to mean that only a lane available to you for passing is permitted. While clearly all lanes to your left going in the same direction as you (including a center turn lane) fit within the section, some prosecutors refuse to accept an on-coming lane as meeting it. It really depends on the prosecutor. Clearly if the line is not a solid line then you should be able to 'overtake' on the opposing lane. You can't overtake on a solid white line. However, it gets controversial when the line is solid yellow. Legally speaking though, I think it should also be permitted, but again, it all depends on the prosecutor's interpretation. Of course, your paralegal really won't be able to argue much with the prosecutor on these issues since they are just trying to negotiate to a lower charge (which doesn't leave you many options!). They can try to convince the prosecutor about the interpretation of the section and how opposing lanes also fit within the section, but if the prosecutor disagrees, the matter will simply be set for trial on the careless charge. Section 148(5) won't even be discussed in court since that is not what you are being charged with and it is NOT an included offense of careless driving; unlike follow too closely. Justices of the Peace also have different opinions on section 148(5). Some will even require that the prosecutor set out in the fact where the 'live' lane on the left was. Bottom line: the case law is not definitive on section 148(5). If you don't qualify for section 148(5), you're only hope will be Follow Too Closely. Otherwise, careless driving it is!
Section 148(5) deals with overtaking cars. Its aim is actually to require that you pass on the left. However, prosecutors commonly use that section as a means to negotiate down from careless driving or follow too closely interpreting it as a 'lane change' section as oppose to an 'overtaking' section. Unfortunately though, many jurisdictions interpret it to mean that only a lane available to you for passing is permitted. While clearly all lanes to your left going in the same direction as you (including a center turn lane) fit within the section, some prosecutors refuse to accept an on-coming lane as meeting it. It really depends on the prosecutor.
Clearly if the line is not a solid line then you should be able to 'overtake' on the opposing lane. You can't overtake on a solid white line. However, it gets controversial when the line is solid yellow. Legally speaking though, I think it should also be permitted, but again, it all depends on the prosecutor's interpretation.
Of course, your paralegal really won't be able to argue much with the prosecutor on these issues since they are just trying to negotiate to a lower charge (which doesn't leave you many options!). They can try to convince the prosecutor about the interpretation of the section and how opposing lanes also fit within the section, but if the prosecutor disagrees, the matter will simply be set for trial on the careless charge. Section 148(5) won't even be discussed in court since that is not what you are being charged with and it is NOT an included offense of careless driving; unlike follow too closely.
Justices of the Peace also have different opinions on section 148(5). Some will even require that the prosecutor set out in the fact where the 'live' lane on the left was. Bottom line: the case law is not definitive on section 148(5).
If you don't qualify for section 148(5), you're only hope will be Follow Too Closely. Otherwise, careless driving it is!
I don't want to distribute misinformation within the community. I can see where the argument can be made with respect to the ID element. Why can't the other driver identify the defendant? Sharing my observations: on two occasions where I was the crown witness on a careless driving charge, the officers were not present. The defendants with their paralegal plead guilty to 148(5). I've also seen a different case where they proceeded to trial without the officer being present. The other driver identified the defendant. If the lack of the officer's presence was fatal to the case? Why did they plea-deal and/or prosecution proceed to trial?
highwaystar wrote:
Actually, the officer absolutely needs to attend. Only they can properly identify you. Without that, the prosecutor fails to meet its case. Its weird that someone would even suggest that the officer is not essential; its not possible to prove the case otherwise since it fails on the ID element.
I don't want to distribute misinformation within the community. I can see where the argument can be made with respect to the ID element. Why can't the other driver identify the defendant?
Sharing my observations: on two occasions where I was the crown witness on a careless driving charge, the officers were not present. The defendants with their paralegal plead guilty to 148(5). I've also seen a different case where they proceeded to trial without the officer being present. The other driver identified the defendant.
If the lack of the officer's presence was fatal to the case? Why did they plea-deal and/or prosecution proceed to trial?
Well if that is the case and the officer is NOT present and only the other driver, then you definitely want somebody else to represent you and not show up yourself. If you are not present (and you do not need to be unless it is a criminal charge which I don't believe this is) then the other driver cannot identify you and they have no case. If the officer is present though, then officer can use your drivers license information to identify you even if you are not there.
Well if that is the case and the officer is NOT present and only the other driver, then you definitely want somebody else to represent you and not show up yourself. If you are not present (and you do not need to be unless it is a criminal charge which I don't believe this is) then the other driver cannot identify you and they have no case. If the officer is present though, then officer can use your drivers license information to identify you even if you are not there.
Well it isn't careless and you can't give somebody a charge that doesn't ft like following to close because I wasn't the other car was going 15 and I was 65 so if it was follow to close I would've hit him when he was going 40 still or whatever so they can't charge me with that and not with careless because it wasn't it's not like if there is no charge that sticks they give you a random one the only one that keeps sense is 148(5) and the prosecutor doesn't make the law either there opinion is based on the law and if the law doesn't say it has to be a double lane or a dotted line then it does matter he can't base it on what he thinks it's the law. It's what the other guy posted the last thread on the first page the person got charged with careless then dropped to follow to close and then it got dropped because there was no proof of follow to close. So I will be talking to paralegal tomorrow and going for 148(5) I understand prosecutor is a big shot but there not the law the represent it and they can just do what r they want if it doesn't fit the situation which neither careless or follow to close does And they can't decide on solid yellow as it is a guideline in Ontario the prosecutor can't say oh well I don't like that so you can't pass THE LAW IS THE LAW and the law doesn'tsay anything about solid yellow other than its a guideline and you may pass if safe or overtake
highwaystar wrote:
Section 148(5) deals with overtaking cars. Its aim is actually to require that you pass on the left. However, prosecutors commonly use that section as a means to negotiate down from careless driving or follow too closely interpreting it as a 'lane change' section as oppose to an 'overtaking' section. Unfortunately though, many jurisdictions interpret it to mean that only a lane available to you for passing is permitted. While clearly all lanes to your left going in the same direction as you (including a center turn lane) fit within the section, some prosecutors refuse to accept an on-coming lane as meeting it. It really depends on the prosecutor.
Clearly if the line is not a solid line then you should be able to 'overtake' on the opposing lane. You can't overtake on a solid white line. However, it gets controversial when the line is solid yellow. Legally speaking though, I think it should also be permitted, but again, it all depends on the prosecutor's interpretation.
Of course, your paralegal really won't be able to argue much with the prosecutor on these issues since they are just trying to negotiate to a lower charge (which doesn't leave you many options!). They can try to convince the prosecutor about the interpretation of the section and how opposing lanes also fit within the section, but if the prosecutor disagrees, the matter will simply be set for trial on the careless charge. Section 148(5) won't even be discussed in court since that is not what you are being charged with and it is NOT an included offense of careless driving; unlike follow too closely.
Justices of the Peace also have different opinions on section 148(5). Some will even require that the prosecutor set out in the fact where the 'live' lane on the left was. Bottom line: the case law is not definitive on section 148(5).
If you don't qualify for section 148(5), you're only hope will be Follow Too Closely. Otherwise, careless driving it is!
Well it isn't careless and you can't give somebody a charge that doesn't ft like following to close because I wasn't the other car was going 15 and I was 65 so if it was follow to close I would've hit him when he was going 40 still or whatever so they can't charge me with that and not with careless because it wasn't it's not like if there is no charge that sticks they give you a random one the only one that keeps sense is 148(5) and the prosecutor doesn't make the law either there opinion is based on the law and if the law doesn't say it has to be a double lane or a dotted line then it does matter he can't base it on what he thinks it's the law. It's what the other guy posted the last thread on the first page the person got charged with careless then dropped to follow to close and then it got dropped because there was no proof of follow to close. So I will be talking to paralegal tomorrow and going for 148(5) I understand prosecutor is a big shot but there not the law the represent it and they can just do what r they want if it doesn't fit the situation which neither careless or follow to close does
And they can't decide on solid yellow as it is a guideline in Ontario the prosecutor can't say oh well I don't like that so you can't pass THE LAW IS THE LAW and the law doesn'tsay anything about solid yellow other than its a guideline and you may pass if safe or overtake
i said it like 4 times IM GETTING A PARALEGAL im not by myself lol I AM BEING represented i cant risk going by myself and saying something stupid but i do know they cant charge you with something that doesnt fit the event. ya careless is the umbrella charge i wasnt careless it was 100ft or less and reaction wasnt immediate more in shock and bad reaction as stated and i tried to pass to the left and it didnt work. and i cant be charged with following to close when the guy was 300FT AHEAD of me went over the hill i come over and hes almost stopped then hit him that is not follow to close so they cant charge me with that. and the only one that makes sense is 148(5) what the prosecutor can see with report and i have pictures and video of everything that it was simply failure to pass and avoid collision he cant charge me with anything esle NOTHING ELSE fits what happened . i will not let it go at follow to close that is terrible charge at 4 points big fine and it didnt happen so i will be very frank with the prosecutor that it is still elgal to cross a solid yellow the road wasnt wavy where i wouldve passed and i can see a good 1-1.5km ahead of where it happened and there was no cars coming in the oncoming thats why i tried . so i will be fighting this and also be very clear i am a honours student in school and if they charge me with a serious offense i wont be able to commit to my 65km a day driving and cant bus becasue i live in the country and that if they charge me with careless or follow to close i wont be able to attend school and be forced to drop out so i know it might not matter but it may shed some light that the fair and true charge 148(5) should be applied or else im just screwed more than just car and driving but with my entire future. ill make that very clear aswell if they decide to give me a different charge. and what the prosecutor will say well you shouldve thought of that before you hit him. and ill say just know your screwing a honest honour students life over who simply made a error with timing and now youll affect my entire life ill make sure even if it doesnt matter that they hear that part and remember it.
jsherk wrote:
Well if that is the case and the officer is NOT present and only the other driver, then you definitely want somebody else to represent you and not show up yourself. If you are not present (and you do not need to be unless it is a criminal charge which I don't believe this is) then the other driver cannot identify you and they have no case. If the officer is present though, then officer can use your drivers license information to identify you even if you are not there.
i said it like 4 times IM GETTING A PARALEGAL im not by myself lol I AM BEING represented i cant risk going by myself and saying something stupid but i do know they cant charge you with something that doesnt fit the event. ya careless is the umbrella charge i wasnt careless it was 100ft or less and reaction wasnt immediate more in shock and bad reaction as stated and i tried to pass to the left and it didnt work. and i cant be charged with following to close when the guy was 300FT AHEAD of me went over the hill i come over and hes almost stopped then hit him that is not follow to close so they cant charge me with that. and the only one that makes sense is 148(5) what the prosecutor can see with report and i have pictures and video of everything that it was simply failure to pass and avoid collision he cant charge me with anything esle NOTHING ELSE fits what happened . i will not let it go at follow to close that is terrible charge at 4 points big fine and it didnt happen so i will be very frank with the prosecutor that it is still elgal to cross a solid yellow the road wasnt wavy where i wouldve passed and i can see a good 1-1.5km ahead of where it happened and there was no cars coming in the oncoming thats why i tried . so i will be fighting this and also be very clear i am a honours student in school and if they charge me with a serious offense i wont be able to commit to my 65km a day driving and cant bus becasue i live in the country and that if they charge me with careless or follow to close i wont be able to attend school and be forced to drop out so i know it might not matter but it may shed some light that the fair and true charge 148(5) should be applied or else im just screwed more than just car and driving but with my entire future. ill make that very clear aswell if they decide to give me a different charge. and what the prosecutor will say well you shouldve thought of that before you hit him. and ill say just know your screwing a honest honour students life over who simply made a error with timing and now youll affect my entire life ill make sure even if it doesnt matter that they hear that part and remember it.
I don't want to distribute misinformation within the community. I can see where the argument can be made with respect to the ID element. Why can't the other driver identify the defendant? Sharing my observations: on two occasions where I was the crown witness on a careless driving charge, the officers were not present. The defendants with their paralegal plead guilty to 148(5). I've also seen a different case where they proceeded to trial without the officer being present. The other driver identified the defendant. If the lack of the officer's presence was fatal to the case? Why did they plea-deal and/or prosecution proceed to trial? IFly55, sorry if my comments came off as an attack---they were poorly worded. My apologies. You have been a valuable contributor on this site and your posts have been helpful to many. To try and answer your questions though, the reality is that I don't know why the prosecution proceeded to trial without the officer. The guilty plea is fine to proceed on since the defendant accepts the facts and no evidence is necessary. However, on most HTA charges, driver identification is critical since the offence is attributed to the driver. For some charges, like the red light camera, the owner is the one that is being charged so MTO records are used instead to ID the vehicle's legal owner at that time. That can also occur on some commercial vehicle charges. However, for most of the common charges like speeding, unsafe lane changes, careless driving, etc. driver ID is a critical element! While it is not absolutely essential that the officer be present to testify about reviewing the driver's licences, without such authoritative testimony, the case should fall based upon a reasonable doubt standard. Let me explain. While driver ID is a critical element to most charges, the case law does not require such ID to be made by any specific means. So, an independent witness can attempt to ID the defendant and that would be enough to meet the first hurdle of the case-----that is, avoid a directed verdict. For those that don't know, a directed verdict happens where the prosecution fails to make out a 'prima facie' case----that is, they fail to introduce 'some evidence' on each element of the case. At the 'directed verdict' stage, the court does not 'weigh' the evidence; it simply needs to know that 'some evidence' was presented with regards to each element of the charge. So, in that scenario, there WOULD be some evidence with regards to the driver's ID (i.e. the witness' testimony), so the prosecutor has made out their prima facie case. However, when it comes time to 'weigh' the evidence and render a verdict, the court would be VERY hard-pressed to rely upon any identification that is not more definitive and/or corroborated. Many many cases have been decided with regards to how unreliable in-court identifications are. A lot of innocent people have been convicted based upon such ID tactics. For this reason, the courts generally prefer to have the officer's testimony about seeing the driver's license and comparing it to the likeness of the person. That minimizes the unreliability factor much more and reduces doubt. So, there you have it. The reason the officer's testimony is critical is from an evidence perspective, not an legal burden. I find it odd that in the case you describe the person was actually represented by a paralegal. Clearly, that would have been the focus point to cross-examine on. Rarely should a conviction result in such a case. And, even more rare would be for an appeal court to not overthrow such a verdict. So, while it was perfectly legal for the prosecutor to proceed to trial without the officer's testimony, it was quite the gamble on their part (and in my opinion, a waste of court time). The paralegal was clearly not very good at attacking the ID evidence. The client should also have also been strongly urged to appeal. The odds were overwhelming in favour of the defence. But, that's the beauty of legal proceedings. Nothing is guaranteed!
iFly55 wrote:
highwaystar wrote:
Actually, the officer absolutely needs to attend. Only they can properly identify you. Without that, the prosecutor fails to meet its case. Its weird that someone would even suggest that the officer is not essential; its not possible to prove the case otherwise since it fails on the ID element.
I don't want to distribute misinformation within the community. I can see where the argument can be made with respect to the ID element. Why can't the other driver identify the defendant?
Sharing my observations: on two occasions where I was the crown witness on a careless driving charge, the officers were not present. The defendants with their paralegal plead guilty to 148(5). I've also seen a different case where they proceeded to trial without the officer being present. The other driver identified the defendant.
If the lack of the officer's presence was fatal to the case? Why did they plea-deal and/or prosecution proceed to trial?
IFly55, sorry if my comments came off as an attack---they were poorly worded. My apologies. You have been a valuable contributor on this site and your posts have been helpful to many.
To try and answer your questions though, the reality is that I don't know why the prosecution proceeded to trial without the officer. The guilty plea is fine to proceed on since the defendant accepts the facts and no evidence is necessary. However, on most HTA charges, driver identification is critical since the offence is attributed to the driver. For some charges, like the red light camera, the owner is the one that is being charged so MTO records are used instead to ID the vehicle's legal owner at that time. That can also occur on some commercial vehicle charges. However, for most of the common charges like speeding, unsafe lane changes, careless driving, etc. driver ID is a critical element!
While it is not absolutely essential that the officer be present to testify about reviewing the driver's licences, without such authoritative testimony, the case should fall based upon a reasonable doubt standard. Let me explain. While driver ID is a critical element to most charges, the case law does not require such ID to be made by any specific means. So, an independent witness can attempt to ID the defendant and that would be enough to meet the first hurdle of the case-----that is, avoid a directed verdict. For those that don't know, a directed verdict happens where the prosecution fails to make out a 'prima facie' case----that is, they fail to introduce 'some evidence' on each element of the case. At the 'directed verdict' stage, the court does not 'weigh' the evidence; it simply needs to know that 'some evidence' was presented with regards to each element of the charge.
So, in that scenario, there WOULD be some evidence with regards to the driver's ID (i.e. the witness' testimony), so the prosecutor has made out their prima facie case.
However, when it comes time to 'weigh' the evidence and render a verdict, the court would be VERY hard-pressed to rely upon any identification that is not more definitive and/or corroborated. Many many cases have been decided with regards to how unreliable in-court identifications are. A lot of innocent people have been convicted based upon such ID tactics. For this reason, the courts generally prefer to have the officer's testimony about seeing the driver's license and comparing it to the likeness of the person. That minimizes the unreliability factor much more and reduces doubt.
So, there you have it. The reason the officer's testimony is critical is from an evidence perspective, not an legal burden. I find it odd that in the case you describe the person was actually represented by a paralegal. Clearly, that would have been the focus point to cross-examine on. Rarely should a conviction result in such a case. And, even more rare would be for an appeal court to not overthrow such a verdict.
So, while it was perfectly legal for the prosecutor to proceed to trial without the officer's testimony, it was quite the gamble on their part (and in my opinion, a waste of court time). The paralegal was clearly not very good at attacking the ID evidence. The client should also have also been strongly urged to appeal. The odds were overwhelming in favour of the defence.
But, that's the beauty of legal proceedings. Nothing is guaranteed!
I don't want to distribute misinformation within the community. I can see where the argument can be made with respect to the ID element. Why can't the other driver identify the defendant? Sharing my observations: on two occasions where I was the crown witness on a careless driving charge, the officers were not present. The defendants with their paralegal plead guilty to 148(5). I've also seen a different case where they proceeded to trial without the officer being present. The other driver identified the defendant. If the lack of the officer's presence was fatal to the case? Why did they plea-deal and/or prosecution proceed to trial? IFly55, sorry if my comments came off as an attack---they were poorly worded. My apologies. You have been a valuable contributor on this site and your posts have been helpful to many. To try and answer your questions though, the reality is that I don't know why the prosecution proceeded to trial without the officer. The guilty plea is fine to proceed on since the defendant accepts the facts and no evidence is necessary. However, on most HTA charges, driver identification is critical since the offence is attributed to the driver. For some charges, like the red light camera, the owner is the one that is being charged so MTO records are used instead to ID the vehicle's legal owner at that time. That can also occur on some commercial vehicle charges. However, for most of the common charges like speeding, unsafe lane changes, careless driving, etc. driver ID is a critical element! While it is not absolutely essential that the officer be present to testify about reviewing the driver's licences, without such authoritative testimony, the case should fall based upon a reasonable doubt standard. Let me explain. While driver ID is a critical element to most charges, the case law does not require such ID to be made by any specific means. So, an independent witness can attempt to ID the defendant and that would be enough to meet the first hurdle of the case-----that is, avoid a directed verdict. For those that don't know, a directed verdict happens where the prosecution fails to make out a 'prima facie' case----that is, they fail to introduce 'some evidence' on each element of the case. At the 'directed verdict' stage, the court does not 'weigh' the evidence; it simply needs to know that 'some evidence' was presented with regards to each element of the charge. So, in that scenario, there WOULD be some evidence with regards to the driver's ID (i.e. the witness' testimony), so the prosecutor has made out their prima facie case. However, when it comes time to 'weigh' the evidence and render a verdict, the court would be VERY hard-pressed to rely upon any identification that is not more definitive and/or corroborated. Many many cases have been decided with regards to how unreliable in-court identifications are. A lot of innocent people have been convicted based upon such ID tactics. For this reason, the courts generally prefer to have the officer's testimony about seeing the driver's license and comparing it to the likeness of the person. That minimizes the unreliability factor much more and reduces doubt. So, there you have it. The reason the officer's testimony is critical is from an evidence perspective, not an legal burden. I find it odd that in the case you describe the person was actually represented by a paralegal. Clearly, that would have been the focus point to cross-examine on. Rarely should a conviction result in such a case. And, even more rare would be for an appeal court to not overthrow such a verdict. So, while it was perfectly legal for the prosecutor to proceed to trial without the officer's testimony, it was quite the gamble on their part (and in my opinion, a waste of court time). The paralegal was clearly not very good at attacking the ID evidence. The client should also have also been strongly urged to appeal. The odds were overwhelming in favour of the defence. But, that's the beauty of legal proceedings. Nothing is guaranteed! i talked to paralegal today and she said hamilton isnt that picky with the lane changing for 148(5) that they will accept a one way lane and crossing to the ooncoming lane for the act they arent picky like the barrie region or burlington or whatever
highwaystar wrote:
iFly55 wrote:
highwaystar wrote:
Actually, the officer absolutely needs to attend. Only they can properly identify you. Without that, the prosecutor fails to meet its case. Its weird that someone would even suggest that the officer is not essential; its not possible to prove the case otherwise since it fails on the ID element.
I don't want to distribute misinformation within the community. I can see where the argument can be made with respect to the ID element. Why can't the other driver identify the defendant?
Sharing my observations: on two occasions where I was the crown witness on a careless driving charge, the officers were not present. The defendants with their paralegal plead guilty to 148(5). I've also seen a different case where they proceeded to trial without the officer being present. The other driver identified the defendant.
If the lack of the officer's presence was fatal to the case? Why did they plea-deal and/or prosecution proceed to trial?
IFly55, sorry if my comments came off as an attack---they were poorly worded. My apologies. You have been a valuable contributor on this site and your posts have been helpful to many.
To try and answer your questions though, the reality is that I don't know why the prosecution proceeded to trial without the officer. The guilty plea is fine to proceed on since the defendant accepts the facts and no evidence is necessary. However, on most HTA charges, driver identification is critical since the offence is attributed to the driver. For some charges, like the red light camera, the owner is the one that is being charged so MTO records are used instead to ID the vehicle's legal owner at that time. That can also occur on some commercial vehicle charges. However, for most of the common charges like speeding, unsafe lane changes, careless driving, etc. driver ID is a critical element!
While it is not absolutely essential that the officer be present to testify about reviewing the driver's licences, without such authoritative testimony, the case should fall based upon a reasonable doubt standard. Let me explain. While driver ID is a critical element to most charges, the case law does not require such ID to be made by any specific means. So, an independent witness can attempt to ID the defendant and that would be enough to meet the first hurdle of the case-----that is, avoid a directed verdict. For those that don't know, a directed verdict happens where the prosecution fails to make out a 'prima facie' case----that is, they fail to introduce 'some evidence' on each element of the case. At the 'directed verdict' stage, the court does not 'weigh' the evidence; it simply needs to know that 'some evidence' was presented with regards to each element of the charge.
So, in that scenario, there WOULD be some evidence with regards to the driver's ID (i.e. the witness' testimony), so the prosecutor has made out their prima facie case.
However, when it comes time to 'weigh' the evidence and render a verdict, the court would be VERY hard-pressed to rely upon any identification that is not more definitive and/or corroborated. Many many cases have been decided with regards to how unreliable in-court identifications are. A lot of innocent people have been convicted based upon such ID tactics. For this reason, the courts generally prefer to have the officer's testimony about seeing the driver's license and comparing it to the likeness of the person. That minimizes the unreliability factor much more and reduces doubt.
So, there you have it. The reason the officer's testimony is critical is from an evidence perspective, not an legal burden. I find it odd that in the case you describe the person was actually represented by a paralegal. Clearly, that would have been the focus point to cross-examine on. Rarely should a conviction result in such a case. And, even more rare would be for an appeal court to not overthrow such a verdict.
So, while it was perfectly legal for the prosecutor to proceed to trial without the officer's testimony, it was quite the gamble on their part (and in my opinion, a waste of court time). The paralegal was clearly not very good at attacking the ID evidence. The client should also have also been strongly urged to appeal. The odds were overwhelming in favour of the defence.
But, that's the beauty of legal proceedings. Nothing is guaranteed!
i talked to paralegal today and she said hamilton isnt that picky with the lane changing for 148(5) that they will accept a one way lane and crossing to the ooncoming lane for the act they arent picky like the barrie region or burlington or whatever
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…
and is there anything you can recommend i bring up or i can use to my advantage for this.
