My responsibility?

Mugwug
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 65
Joined:

Re: My responsibility?

Unread post by Mugwug on

Limivi wrote:Thx again Stanton. Sound advice.

Mugwug I thought I was presenting a defence not an explanation? I do not plan to admit guilt in front of the jp. Why do you call it an explanation?
Limivi,

You are charged with "fail to surrender insurance card" contrary to the compulsory insurance act of Ontario. You were pulled over by Police on a highway and did not have the correct insurance slip with you. That's really all there is to it with respect to the elements of this offence. If you cannot counter these facts you really don't have a "defence". What you are offering here is an explanation (which is actually an admission of guilt) as to why you were in contravention of the law, and are hoping that the JP sees things your way.

I'm getting the impression you don't understand that you ARE guilty of this offence, by your own admission here. It is probable that the crown may withdraw the charge if you present the correct certificate of insurance to them in court, but understand that they are under no obligation to do this, and that you are asking for their goodwill.


Limivi
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined:

Unread post by Limivi on

Mugwug, I hope you're talking to me like that to prep me for the way the most hardassed JP would see it? Cus I'm getting the impression you think THIS is a courtroom. Nothing I admit HERE would make me guilty of anything.
Thanks for your help. You make me resolved to show the same policy I showed her as valid. My question for her on the stand will be " yes or no, did I present you with a valid insurance card bearing the policy # for the vehicle I was driving?" The answer to that is unequivocally yes.
I can't wait to see how it turns out. Do you want me to let you know?


ynotp
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 548
Joined:
Location: Ontario

Posting Awards

Unread post by ynotp on

I really do think you will be found guilty if you take this approach. It is not you against the officer, it is you against the prosecutor. The prosecutor will establish that the officer was given a card that did not identify that either you or that vehicle and that is all they need to convict. As for the policy number being the same that would be something you will have to give testimony about not the officer and it will not help you, in fact it will only support the case against you. The offence is only not showing it to the officer at that moment in time for whatever reason. Would any reasonable person accept as definitive proof of insurance a card that said 2009 Mazda in John Smith's name but they got a card for a 2010 GMC with John Smith's name and Peter Jones was driving it?


Mugwug
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 65
Joined:

Unread post by Mugwug on

Limivi wrote:My question for her on the stand will be " yes or no, did I present you with a valid insurance card bearing the policy # for the vehicle I was driving?" The answer to that is unequivocally yes. I can't wait to see how it turns out. Do you want me to let you know?
You do not get to limit the officer to "yes" or "no" answers, the response will be that the vehicle you were operating was not listed on the insurance slip you provided. If you persist in trying to lock the officer into some semantic trap you'll likely annoy the JP and draw the ire of the crown. The crown will cross and confirm that you were on a public roadway, were clearly identified at the time of the offence and will confirm with the officer that you were unable to provide an insurance slip corresponding to the vehicle you were operating.

I want you to understand that you have, in your original post, admitted that you committed the offence for which you are charged. You may get the crown to withdraw the ticket, but if you go to trial with what you have told us here you're almost certainly going to be found guilty. It's not about a hard ass JP, it's about the elements of the offence and procedural correctness.

I'm sorry that I can't tell you what you want to hear, but I do want you to have a realistic understanding of the process you are about to take part in. I do wish you the best of luck.

Regardless of the outcome others may benefit from your experience so yes, please come back and update the thread after your day in court.


Limivi
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined:

Unread post by Limivi on

Okay I won't say the yes or no part ; )

I really think an ethical, moral JP will find the waste of resources and hair splitting of this case will override the absolute lawfulness of it. Some laws are just silly, outdated or inappropriately enforced. Wouldn't you agree? I am aware of all the insurance fraud out there and an officer's need to be diligent (ins. being a gov. endorsed money grab, but that's another argument) but in this case? Don't take my hard earned money!

I'll let you know.


argyll
VIP
VIP
Posts: 888
Joined:

Posting Awards

Unread post by argyll on

Because a defence would be to say that you actually did have proof of insurance........a reason is explained why you didn't
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !


Limivi
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined:

Unread post by Limivi on

Thanks argyll. That is my defence. What do you think of it?


argyll
VIP
VIP
Posts: 888
Joined:

Posting Awards

Unread post by argyll on

I think a defence based on the law is stupid and wasteful will not be well-received ! It'll be entertaining though, wish I could be there to see it.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !


pirish
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 30
Joined:

Unread post by pirish on

Limivi.

Just so I understand... your spouse Put the slip for his truck in the car and visa versa, correct?
This happened to my wife..

who is the primary insurance holder? their name will be on the slips.

EG. my wife and I both drive... I'm the primary on the Minivan (policy in my name and my name on slip) she is the secondary.. Rates are primarily based of me then my wife.

My Motorcycle... I'm the only driver.. again my name is on the slip and policy...

I accidently put my motorcycle slip in the van, wife got stopped and ticketed... (even though she is in my policy and listed as the secondary driver it doesn't say that on the slip) Only evidence the officer has at that time is that my motorcycle is insured..

luckily it was close to the house and as the officer was finishing the ticket I arrived and produced the proper slip.

Long story short ticket went through and on early resolution I brought in the policy that shows the van was insured and the prosecuter dropped it.. (Guilty with an explaination)...


viper1
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 502
Joined:

Unread post by viper1 on

The way I see it is that if the policy is valid and an issue occurred it would be paid.

Cheers
Viperr1
"hang onto your chair when reading my posts
use at your own risk"


Limivi
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined:

Unread post by Limivi on

My trial is tomorrow and I just got a call from the prosecuter saying the officer has been injured and will not be able to attend so he's going to ask for an adjournment. What advice can you give for how I should proceed?


ynotp
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 548
Joined:
Location: Ontario

Posting Awards

Unread post by ynotp on

Whatever you do, do not agree. Go to court and argue against the adjournment saying that you are ready to proceed and that if the prosecutor is not then the charge should be dismissed or withdrawn.


Limivi
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined:

Unread post by Limivi on

That's what I thought. Thanks. Any chance it would still go to trial tomorrow?


Stanton
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 2111
Joined:
Location: Ontario

Unread post by Stanton on

They can't proceed without the officer. The adjournment may be granted since the circumstances causing the delay were unforeseen, but obviously argue against it. In my experience adjournments are rarely granted if the officer is away on course/vacation, but since this is something beyond the Crown/officer's control, they may.


Limivi
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined:

Unread post by Limivi on

Well it's over and i won, woohoo. Sorry it didn't go to trial (got thrown out) so I could share that with you all. I guest the prosecuter didn't want the adjournment that bad cus he didn't have the officer's schedule in order to set a date. He was just bluffing. The JOP was awesome. I know she would have sided with me in a trial. She was very helpful to the other defendants.
I do want to share something I found at another great site that puts it all in perspective.
Please read this from Fight Your Traffic Ticket...

Pre-Trial Poker

Poker has become a very popular card game. The most interesting aspect of the game is that the player with the best hand will not always win. That's because the game is all about bluffing. A successful bluff can make the player with the stronger hand fold. In other words weak hands can win as often as strong ones.

Too often in pre-trial, defendants with very good cases are bluffed into pleading guilty to a lesser charge and/or fine.

Some strong arm tactics may be used like telling you that disclosure was ready for some time but you didn't put a telephone number on the request. Or they may point out that they caught an error on the ticket and will have it amended. A more subtle approach might be to ask you why you are pleading not guilty and then try and convince you that your reasoning isn't sound. In fact all they are doing is using what you told them to help prepare a better response to give before the justice.

Many people who have gone through this and refused to plead to a lesser charge are stunned when only a few minutes later, the prosecutor inexplicably drops the charge before the justice. This is part of the game. Your invitation to play was issued on a yellow ticket.






Post Reply

Return to “Courts and Procedure”