Failure To Provide Insurance Card?

The other day I was driving and was pulled over by an O.P.P officer and was charged with failure to provide insurance card. I was driving my mothers car at the time and did not have her proof of insurance or registration in the vehicle. I provided the officer with my insurance for my car, which covers me for any vehicle I drive. My mothers insurance does not cover me, which is why I didn't think it was necessary to have her proof of insurance, considering I showed mine, which covers me... Needless to say, I was charged. I have been told by many people, including a few officers, that if I show up to court to fight it, with the proof of insurance for that specific vehicle, I will get off, and I was just wondering everyone else's opinion on the topic. Thanks for your time.

Here's the actual section from the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act:

Operator to carry insurance card

3. (1) An operator of a motor vehicle on a highway shall have in the motor vehicle at all times,

(a) an insurance card for the motor vehicle; or

(b) an insurance card evidencing that the operator is insured under a contract of automobile insurance,

and the operator shall surrender the insurance card for reasonable inspection upon the demand of a police officer.

It sounds to me like you complied with subsection b, and would be found not guilty at trial. Obviously bring proof of both your insurance and the vehicle's to Court, but I imagine the Crown will simply withdraw the charge.

Thanks allot for your reply, I didn't even think of looking into the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act to see what I was charged under... The info. you provided me with is the perfect defense, thanks again.

Just make sure that you request disclosure and get a copy of the officer's notes. (See our "Courts and Procedures" section for that.) From there, put your case together. If you were charged under section 3, your cross-examination of the officer would go a little something like this:

You: "Was a valid insurance card surrendered to you?"

Officer: "Yes, but not for the vehicle."

You: "Which vehicle was it for?"

Officer: "The defendant's."

You: "Oh, okay... may I read you section 3 of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act?" (Read it.) "Do you agree that is the section you charged me under?"

Officer: "Um... yes."

You: "I'd like to make a motion of non-suit. The Prosecutor has failed to demonstrate that the law was broken."

Thank you so much for the help, it is greatly appreciated. Especially being this is my first time dealing with anything like this.

I would still try and ask for a first attendance meeting. Most Crown's in my experience are pretty good at withdrawing charges when there is no prospect of conviction. A lot simpler to have them withdraw the charge if possible then spend all day in Court for a trial.

same charge here but with a little twist. driving on my service plate, pulled over of course. on the back of my service plate A PHOTOCOPY of my insurance slip is taped to it.......the officer WAS shown this photocopy....but was still charged......my question is " is a photocopy(black and white) a VALID proof of insurance???.......what supporting documentation would be needed in court to establish that photocopy as VALID??......i'm taping originals to my service plates today but that doesnt help me for this ticket.....thanks for any advice......

The compulsory automobile insurance act simply states that you must surrender the insurance card, there is no option for a "true copy" like with the vehicle ownership. I've always understood this to mean you must surrender the original document.

As for Court, assuming you were charged with not having proof of insurance, you can't show that it was valid after the fact. The charge is for not having proof at the time of the stop, not for having no insurance. It wouldn't hurt to bring along a copy of your insurance slip and policy as the Crown may offer a plea deal, but I can't see it being of any use at trial.

as stated in the question.........it was a photocopy taped to the back of the dealer plate......is this valid proof of insurance??....or does it have to be "an original" pink insurance card??..........

Stanton answered the question above. "you must surrender the original document"

I'm of the same opinion, there is no provision under the CAIA to use a "true" copy of your insurance. It must be the original pink slip.

can anyone provide a specific act or section of act that states that it must be an original??.....speaking to my insurance agent she informed me that its their common practice to email or fax someone an insurance card as the originals are mailed out from toronto......so is industry standard illegal???........i'm planning on a court date in the future so im looking for hard and fast rules one way or the other.......thanks for any help

The fact that an act states you must carry the document is sufficient to indicate it must be original. When copies are allowed, the act will spell out these exemptions.

In terms of specifics, looks at the definitions at the start of Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act. The act states you must carry an insurance card, and defines an insurance card as a form approved by the superintendent. The superintendent it refers to is that of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. You can try reading through FCSO bulletins to see if there are any exemptions, but I don't believe there are. The FCSO information I've read before always clearly states the size, shape, form and color that the card must be and provided by the FCSO.

Again, I'd seriously try simply talking with the Crown prior to trial. Some jurisdictions they will simply withdraw the charge if you can show proof of insurance and just explain it was a mistake.

Edit: Just to add, the industry practice isn't illegal. It simply takes time for them to mail out slips, hence why renewals are mailed out a few weeks in advance. A temporary slip isn't necessarily legal, but officers can use discretion.

Thanks everyone for the help... I had my court day the other day, and showed the officer the caption from the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act. and he was just like "Oh, I see what you mean... Let me go clearify this with the crown". Abit later he comes back an says, the crown said he will consider it... I had all my insurance info on me and showed the officer it aswell... I was surprised that the officer said that the crown will consider it, considering the proof is right there but whatever, I got off anyway... I think the officer was just trying to intimidate me or something because he felt dumb that he was in the wrong. Oh well, Thanks again!

Congratulations Z24.