Ontariohighwaytrafficact.com

Ok, I will break this down step by step

1) On march 25th 2013 I was pulled over by a police officer. I was turning into a survey to go to a friends house. At this time I did notice a police cruiser in the distance but thought nothing of it.

When the officer approached me he said it looks like your trying to evade the police, where are you going, to which i replied no, my friend lives in this survey whom I am visiting. He then asked for Dl, INS, and Owner..

I provided him with all 3 and he then informed me my INS slip was for the wrong car. The slip I provided him with was for a car that I had recently sold.....I had recently purchased a new car and called my INS company on march 22 to inform them of the change. I informed the police officer of this and explained the reason the car is incorrect on the slip is because I sold it and just registered this car on the 22nd and I called my insurance company the same day, who told me they will mail out the updated slips. He said it didn't matter the slip is incorrrect and he gave me a ticket under 3(1)....

Now.. 3(1) states..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

The insurance card I presented was not expired, had my name and address on it and was a valid slip from my insurance company - how does this violate part b?

Anyhow, I attended court today for the trial and met with the prosecutor who would not drop the charge so I requested a trial. However, the officer called in sick and the crown asked that the trial date be re-set. I explained to the judge how it has already been a 9 month delay period, I am a university student undergoing exams, taking time out of my day was an inconvenience, etc, but no luck, trial is rescheduled for may 21st 2014

A couple of questions:

1) Should I now ask for disclosure on the case?

2) Should I consider using Section 11b of the charter - 14 months since charge date...crowns fault not mine?

3) Should I do nothing and plead my case at the trial as I feel I am correct?

Thank you for your time and help!

Yes, I would request disclosure. You still should be prepared to go to trial in case your 11b is denied (but it likely will not be if filed correctly).

Have your insurance company documents showing that the insurance was transferred to the new car (see if they are willing to write you a letter stating that what you did was a standard and acceptable industry practice).

When you buy another car you are covered automatically for at least 10 days, maybe 15 not sure.

Cheers

Viper1

viper1 wrote:

When you buy another car you are covered automatically for at least 10 days, maybe 15 not sure.

Cheers

Viper1

Thank you viper, do you know where I can find the law on this?

I would ask your broker.

But the ibc website would have it.

The policy # should be the same.

If you have valid insurance on a car and then buy another car

you are covered on it for the same amount of insurance.

Cheers

Viper1

From one company's site

http://www.melochemonnex.com/en/car-ins ... cumstances

Thank you for your help guys..

The problem is that I had actually purchased the new vehicle a month before I started driving it. I found a good deal and the car just sat in my garage for a month so I did not bother to put insurance on it (However, I did register the car). I was in the process of tying to selling my other car at this time. However, when I finally did sell my other car and decided it was time to start driving my new one, I contacted my insurance company to let them know of the vehicle change. They quoted me my new price and told me I will be receiving my updated slips in the mail.

I contacted my insurance company on March 21st and received the ticket at 1230am on March 25 (and of course the slips came in the mail that same day).

So my question is, will I still be covered under this grace period which you guys are talking about?

If not, I still do not see how I have violated part b of 3(1) of the caia? Again, do you think it is worth filing an 11(b)?

Also, I do have records from from insurance company indicating that the date of vehicle change was on March 21st.

Thank you, I truly appreciate your help in this matter

The slip you got in the mail should have had a date prior to the date you were charged. You produced

a valid slip. Take both with you to court. They should withdraw the charge.

Take the policy's too so that you can back up the story as to dates.

Cheers

Viper1

Do not proceed to trial without getting disclosure (officer's notes); at this moment, you have no idea what the officer is going to say in his testimony.

It's absolutely in your best interest to file an 11 (b), especially if the delay from the date you "filed your intention to appear" to your "trial" date is 14mths, and all attributed to the crown.

Moreover it doesn't appear to be a slam dunk victory for you. Surely, you've already explained everything you've told us to the prosecutor who refused to withdraw the charge. They would only do this, if there was some prospect of getting a conviction.

I would be prepared to go to trial with insurance documents that you can submit to the courts, and not just go up to the stand and say the insurance company website says this... or i heard it through the grapevine.

___________________________________

idk if this carries any weight, but the French translation of the CAIA does not include the word "or" for S.3 (1), so (a) & (b) might have to be fulfilled. But if the policy # is the same for the old and new car, then (a) could be fulfilled.

quick search of CanLII for s 3(1) of the CAIA returned these:

R. v. Bydeley, 2012 ONCJ 837 (CanLII): http://canlii.ca/t/fwtwr[quote][1] Steven Bydeley appeals his convictions of May 24, 2011, on three Provincial Offences: that in the City of Toronto, on March 16, 2010 he failed to have an insurance card, contrary to Section 3(1) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act;

[8] ...The fact pattern is very similar: Mr. Bydeley, the Appellant here, was operating, or driving the motor vehicle, alleged to have been speeding and for which he was unable to produce proof of valid insurance or his own drivers licence.

[16] Her Worship dismisses Mr. Bydeleys defence that because he handed an expired insurance card to the officer, he complied with the law. She observes "there is no evidence that you had a valid insurance card that day, and it is required by law that you carry at all times an insurance card when you are behind the drivers seat [sic] and driving a vehicle in the Province of Ontario." To suggest, as the Appellant does, that any piece of paper indicating that it is an insurance card makes a mockery of the clear intent of the law. I dismiss this ground of appeal.[/quote]R. v. Marrocco, 2012 ONCJ 535 (CanLII): http://canlii.ca/t/fshhj[quote]26. Fail to surrender Insurance Card

Section 3(1) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act provides as follows:

"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.

27. It is common ground that when the officer made a demand for the defendants insurance card, he provided her with a faxed copy of the card, indicating in his evidence that when he insured the vehicle someone from his insurance brokerage advised him not to keep an original insurance card in his vehicle, but rather a copy.

28. Section 1 of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act states that an "insurance card" means,

(a) a Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Card in the form approved by the Superintendent,

(b) a policy of automobile insurance or a certificate of a policy in the form approved by the Superintendent, or

(c) a document in a form approved by the Superintendent;

And "Superintendent" means the Superintendent of Financial Services appointed under the Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997.

29. As such, I find that the defendant did not provide the officer with a valid insurance card as defined. There will be a finding of guilt, and a conviction will be registered.

30. I ask for submissions on penalty please.[/quote]R. v. Mir-Husseini, 2008 ONCJ 319 (CanLII): http://canlii.ca/t/1zkc6[quote]3.The issues are ... whether, when called upon to do so by the investigating officer, the defendant failed to produce an insurance card for the motor vehicle which he had been driving.

9.The relevant aspects of Officer Ariss testimony in relation to the charges are as follows:

d) When requested by the officer, the defendant was not able to produce a current insurance card for the vehicle; the officer cautioned the defendant, took statements from him, and then charged him with the offences which are before the court.

F. Analysis

12.Let me first deal with the charge of failing to surrender insurance card. Section 3(1) (a) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act provides as follows:

"An operator of a motor vehicle on a highway shall have in the motor vehicle at all times, an insurance card for the motor vehicle, and the operator shall surrender the insurance card for reasonable inspection upon the demand of a police officer."

13.There is no evidence before the court to contradict the evidence of officer Ariss who testified that while in the process of investigating the incident, he made a demand for the defendants insurance card, which the defendant failed to provide.

14.Consequently, I find that the prosecution has proven that charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and a conviction is registered.[/quote]

Thank you all again,

As per what iFyy55 said, I did inform the prosecutor of everything I have disclosed to you guys. Why would he not withdraw the charge as it appears I am correct?

He did say to me that there is no lesser charge to offer you - could this be why he wants to proceed to trial, because he has nothing to lose?

I just want to make sure I am not missing anything here, from what you have all told me I find it odd that he did not drop the charge.

Thank you