Hi all, Hoping to get some insight. I got a notice for a handheld and requested an ERM. The Original date for the ERM was December 17, 2019. I requested to reschedule. On January 31, 2020 I received (through email) a notice for a new ERM date on February 12, 2020. The email went to my junk folder so I didn't even see it until today and I looked online to see a conviction was entered. My question is, the original notice says that the new meeting date must be within 30 days of the original ERM date. How can they convict me when the new ERM date wasn't within 30 days? How do I fight this? Any advice? Thanks
Hi all,
Hoping to get some insight.
I got a notice for a handheld and requested an ERM. The Original date for the ERM was December 17, 2019.
I requested to reschedule.
On January 31, 2020 I received (through email) a notice for a new ERM date on February 12, 2020.
The email went to my junk folder so I didn't even see it until today and I looked online to see a conviction was entered.
My question is, the original notice says that the new meeting date must be within 30 days of the original ERM date.
How can they convict me when the new ERM date wasn't within 30 days?
Go to your local POA court and file the paper work requesting a re-opening. They'll grant it. Once they do, don't bother with an ER meeting on that offence since the prosecution can't reduce anything----the $500 set fine on your ticket is already the minimum statutory fine (which neither they nor the court can lower any further). Plus, no one (prosecution or court) can do anything about the points nor the 3 day suspension. So, bottom line: your ONLY two options with that offence are either pay your ticket or go to trial. If you go to trial, know that they CAN seek a higher fine---the range is $500-$1000 (plus court costs). I hope that clarifies things for you.
Go to your local POA court and file the paper work requesting a re-opening. They'll grant it.
Once they do, don't bother with an ER meeting on that offence since the prosecution can't reduce anything----the $500 set fine on your ticket is already the minimum statutory fine (which neither they nor the court can lower any further). Plus, no one (prosecution or court) can do anything about the points nor the 3 day suspension. So, bottom line: your ONLY two options with that offence are either pay your ticket or go to trial. If you go to trial, know that they CAN seek a higher fine---the range is $500-$1000 (plus court costs).
Go to your local POA court and file the paper work requesting a re-opening. They'll grant it.
Once they do, don't bother with an ER meeting on that offence since the prosecution can't reduce anything----the $500 set fine on your ticket is already the minimum statutory fine (which neither they nor the court can lower any further). Plus, no one (prosecution or court) can do anything about the points nor the 3 day suspension. So, bottom line: your ONLY two options with that offence are either pay your ticket or go to trial. If you go to trial, know that they CAN seek a higher fine---the range is $500-$1000 (plus court costs).
I hope that clarifies things for you.
Thanks but my question is more about the ERM not being scheduled within 30 days. Is that cause for the ticket to be dismissed?
You're right that they had to reschedule your ERM within 30 days of Dec. 17/19 (as per POA s.5.1(4)). That would mean your second meeting should have taken place by Jan. 16/20. Of course, this is all assuming that you requested the rescheduling of the ERM BEFORE Dec. 17/19. If you didn't then you were convicted on that day. However, in seeking recourse, the appropriate remedy is not to dismiss the charge but rather to re-open the matter. That's how the courts treat those things (see s. 85). That's why I said they will grant your re-opening application. Remember, it would be prejudicial to the prosecution if your matter were simply to be dismissed based on a court error/delay, especially without a hearing on the matter. So (as is consistent with the legislation's intent and court interpretation on POA matters), they just re-open the matter and everyone gets their fair day in court.
You're right that they had to reschedule your ERM within 30 days of Dec. 17/19 (as per POA s.5.1(4)). That would mean your second meeting should have taken place by Jan. 16/20. Of course, this is all assuming that you requested the rescheduling of the ERM BEFORE Dec. 17/19. If you didn't then you were convicted on that day.
However, in seeking recourse, the appropriate remedy is not to dismiss the charge but rather to re-open the matter. That's how the courts treat those things (see s. 85). That's why I said they will grant your re-opening application. Remember, it would be prejudicial to the prosecution if your matter were simply to be dismissed based on a court error/delay, especially without a hearing on the matter. So (as is consistent with the legislation's intent and court interpretation on POA matters), they just re-open the matter and everyone gets their fair day in court.
Thanks for the response. I guess that what doesn't make sense is that the prosecution didn't reschedule within 30 days (I did request the reschedule prior to the date of the first meeting - about a week earlier). I was convicted on February 12 the day of the late rescheduled ERM. So let's say I hadn't been convicted yet. And the prosecution didn't reschedule The ERM within 30 days. Then what? I would have to go to court? There's no repercussions against the prosecutor? That doesn't make sense.
You're right that they had to reschedule your ERM within 30 days of Dec. 17/19 (as per POA s.5.1(4)). That would mean your second meeting should have taken place by Jan. 16/20. Of course, this is all assuming that you requested the rescheduling of the ERM BEFORE Dec. 17/19. If you didn't then you were convicted on that day.
However, in seeking recourse, the appropriate remedy is not to dismiss the charge but rather to re-open the matter. That's how the courts treat those things (see s. 85). That's why I said they will grant your re-opening application. Remember, it would be prejudicial to the prosecution if your matter were simply to be dismissed based on a court error/delay, especially without a hearing on the matter. So (as is consistent with the legislation's intent and court interpretation on POA matters), they just re-open the matter and everyone gets their fair day in court.
Thanks for the response.
I guess that what doesn't make sense is that the prosecution didn't reschedule within 30 days (I did request the reschedule prior to the date of the first meeting - about a week earlier). I was convicted on February 12 the day of the late rescheduled ERM.
So let's say I hadn't been convicted yet. And the prosecution didn't reschedule The ERM within 30 days. Then what? I would have to go to court? There's no repercussions against the prosecutor? That doesn't make sense.
And as far as I understand you have to apply for an extension of time which the prosecutor would not have done. I think my point is that the conviction should never have been entered in the first place and I should be entitled to dismiss based on the prosecutor not scheduling the erm meeting in time and not filing a request to extend time.
And as far as I understand you have to apply for an extension of time which the prosecutor would not have done.
I think my point is that the conviction should never have been entered in the first place and I should be entitled to dismiss based on the prosecutor not scheduling the erm meeting in time and not filing a request to extend time.
Last edited by Ta85 on Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
So, did you not attend your ERM on Feb. 12? If so, then the conviction is correct since you failed to attend. I hope you didn't just rely on the 30 day time frame provision as some sort of perceived fatal error and not attend your ER--is that what you did? If so, I wouldn't say that because it will not be re-opened. If we were talking several months in delay, you might be able to appeal and raise the 'prejudicial effect' of such an error, but in your case, we are only talking a matter of a few weeks and they would send you home quickly. The good news is that JP's are generally good about allowing a re-opening if you can establish that you didn't know about the ER date (or some other emergency prevented you from attending). In your case, you'll have to establish that you didn't read your emails before then and did not know about the Feb. 12 date, especially since you are the one who requested a re-scheduling. The court's view is that you should have been following up on when your new date was. That said, the chances are still good that they'll allow the re-opening if you simply word things correctly (without lying of course!). Oh, and by the way, early resolution meetings are actually scheduled by the court office; not the prosecution's office. Its all done by court staff; not employees of the prosecutor's office since the notice is a court document.
So, did you not attend your ERM on Feb. 12? If so, then the conviction is correct since you failed to attend. I hope you didn't just rely on the 30 day time frame provision as some sort of perceived fatal error and not attend your ER--is that what you did? If so, I wouldn't say that because it will not be re-opened. If we were talking several months in delay, you might be able to appeal and raise the 'prejudicial effect' of such an error, but in your case, we are only talking a matter of a few weeks and they would send you home quickly.
The good news is that JP's are generally good about allowing a re-opening if you can establish that you didn't know about the ER date (or some other emergency prevented you from attending). In your case, you'll have to establish that you didn't read your emails before then and did not know about the Feb. 12 date, especially since you are the one who requested a re-scheduling. The court's view is that you should have been following up on when your new date was. That said, the chances are still good that they'll allow the re-opening if you simply word things correctly (without lying of course!).
Oh, and by the way, early resolution meetings are actually scheduled by the court office; not the prosecution's office. Its all done by court staff; not employees of the prosecutor's office since the notice is a court document.
The original notice says "by law, the rescheduled date of your meeting must be within 30 days of your original meeting date". I was actually checking the regular mail for the notice. Instead it came by email and it was in my junk folder which is why I didn't see it. I called the courts today to find out what was going on, went online and saw the conviction, called in and the call centre said it was emailed which is when I went to check my junk mail. It was sent in January 31 which is still post 30days. If the 30 days are a "guideline" then that should be articulated but they aren't and as far as I understand, barring a motion to extend etc, they are to be strictly adhered to. Otherwise what's the point? As you mentioned I really only have two options (trial or plead guilty and pay) then is there really even a point in re-opening if I'm not taking it to trial?
The original notice says "by law, the rescheduled date of your meeting must be within 30 days of your original meeting date".
I was actually checking the regular mail for the notice. Instead it came by email and it was in my junk folder which is why I didn't see it. I called the courts today to find out what was going on, went online and saw the conviction, called in and the call centre said it was emailed which is when I went to check my junk mail. It was sent in January 31 which is still post 30days.
If the 30 days are a "guideline" then that should be articulated but they aren't and as far as I understand, barring a motion to extend etc, they are to be strictly adhered to. Otherwise what's the point?
As you mentioned I really only have two options (trial or plead guilty and pay) then is there really even a point in re-opening if I'm not taking it to trial?
If you don't plan on going to trial, then you really shouldn't waste your time and just pay the ticket. As previously mentioned, all this will do is re-open the matter. The court will correct any flaw via its jurisdiction in s. 85 of the POA and rely upon the OCA decision of Wadood. In paragraph 14, the Court of Appeal says: An important goal of the Provincial Offences Act is that cases be decided on their merits. A corollary to that goal is that a minor defect in a proceeding, not prejudicing a defendant, should not be given effect to.
If you don't plan on going to trial, then you really shouldn't waste your time and just pay the ticket. As previously mentioned, all this will do is re-open the matter. The court will correct any flaw via its jurisdiction in s. 85 of the POA and rely upon the OCA decision of Wadood.
In paragraph 14, the Court of Appeal says:
An important goal of the Provincial Offences Act is that cases be decided on their merits. A corollary to that goal is that a minor defect in a proceeding, not prejudicing a defendant, should not be given effect to.
Curious if you're a lawyer? As I read the case it's specifically about mistakes on a certificate of Offence. Not the same as missing a legislated deadline. I really appreciate all your input!
Curious if you're a lawyer?
As I read the case it's specifically about mistakes on a certificate of Offence.
Well, you seem adamant that such a deadline is indeed crucial when the legislation and case law says otherwise. I've even given you sections and case law. So, it seems the only way you are going to be satisfied of the answer is if the court specifically rules on your matter. You should therefore file for an Appeal then; not a re-opening. And if you lose on that, by all means, take it up to Superior Court by filing an Application for Certiorari and try your arguments. Let us know how you make out. Good luck!
Well, you seem adamant that such a deadline is indeed crucial when the legislation and case law says otherwise. I've even given you sections and case law. So, it seems the only way you are going to be satisfied of the answer is if the court specifically rules on your matter. You should therefore file for an Appeal then; not a re-opening. And if you lose on that, by all means, take it up to Superior Court by filing an Application for Certiorari and try your arguments.
I wasn't being sarcastic...I was enjoying the discussion. And yes, you have referred to case law which I've looked at and countered. You've provided legislation, as have I where the provision that I reference clearly mentions 30 days. If it was a loosey goosey timeline then it would say "the rescheduled meeting should be within a reasonable time". Courts interpret grey areas yes but they don't necessarily question hard deadlines and, where they are allowed to (such as the section you mentioned where a court can extend a deadline), a court doesn't do that without the request of a party to do so. Why does a defendant have a hard deadline of 15 days to dispute a ticket or request a meeting but the requirement to schedule a meeting within 30 days of the original date can be extended without any judicial review?
I wasn't being sarcastic...I was enjoying the discussion.
And yes, you have referred to case law which I've looked at and countered.
You've provided legislation, as have I where the provision that I reference clearly mentions 30 days. If it was a loosey goosey timeline then it would say "the rescheduled meeting should be within a reasonable time". Courts interpret grey areas yes but they don't necessarily question hard deadlines and, where they are allowed to (such as the section you mentioned where a court can extend a deadline), a court doesn't do that without the request of a party to do so.
Why does a defendant have a hard deadline of 15 days to dispute a ticket or request a meeting but the requirement to schedule a meeting within 30 days of the original date can be extended without any judicial review?
The re-opening and appeal remedies are there to address such 'hard" deadlines. Nothing is preventing you from trying your arguments except time and money. So, I say, go for it---maybe you'll end up changing things. Someone's gotta be the first.
The re-opening and appeal remedies are there to address such 'hard" deadlines. Nothing is preventing you from trying your arguments except time and money. So, I say, go for it---maybe you'll end up changing things. Someone's gotta be the first.
Hi everyone. I'm asking for a friend who has a question of interpretation.
He was ticketed for using a hand-held device. He contends that he was acting within the exemption provided under Subsection 14 (1) of O. Reg. 366/09, which reads as follows (emphasis added):
Hey guys i just wanted to know what speeds you see others do on the roads on a regular basis. As we all know no body drives 100 km. It seems they only hit that speed twice once on the way up and once on the way down.
it seems the De Facto limit on the 401 is about 120-130. But lately i dont know if…
On June 10, 2017, I was pulled over by an OPP on the 403 heading WB and told I registered 136km/hr. I kept chit chat to a minimum and took my ticket and went on with my day. I later requested my disclosure and did not receive it until a week before my Oct. 27 court date, and so I had my date…
Anyone know any more information? Apparently kathleen wynne mentioned trying to introduce legislation after more than 20 years of no speed cameras. My guess is that it wont happen, since they've tried before many times to bring it back after it was abolished.
The other day I was given a ticket for speeding 119 in a 90, on highway 17 near Marathon, ON (Speeding ticket capital of the universe, BTW). The officer claims to have "clocked" me using the vehicle mounted radar at 121 KMH and dropped it (presumably to lower fine and demerits).
I posted this in the 3 Demerit Section and haven't received any
responses.
I received a failure to stop at an amber light ticket on April 17, 2009. At my First Attendance Meeting I asked to read the police officer's notes and remember thinking how ridiculous they were and the difficulty…
I was on the right side of the road going straight when a pedestrian waved down the taxi driver in the lane next to me. He pulled over to the right without any notice or signalling and hit me with the side of his car.
There were many witnesses but I immediately had a concussion and did not think of…
My mother was driving EB on a 4 lane street (2 lanes EB, 2 lanes WB).
She was in the left hand lane and started a left hand turn so as to enter a side street, crossing WB traffic. There was NO intersection. She hit a cyclist who was heading WB. Police where called but none showed up. My…
If the speed limit is 50, and you do 100+, not only do you get 6 points. Your car gets impounded for a week, and your license suspended for 7 days, along with a hefty fine of at least $2000. The penalty is actually the same as for racing. The law came in effect on October 1, 2007. Remember -…
I was driving westbound on Hwy. 8 earlier this month in North Dumfries Township, approaching the Cambridge city limits. The weather was clear and the roads were dry. I noticed a vehicle on the shoulder on my side of the road, pointing towards me. This didn't concern me right away, as it is a rural…
