The ticket I'm fighting is failure to produce valid insurance. I was driving my common law's car for which I am primary driver. I knew it was insured and saw him put the slip in the glove box. Problem is I didn't know he had accidentally switched the slips so the one for his truck was in the car and vice versa. My question is should I argue that it should not be my ticket (not MY car or MY insurance) or like he says, the policy # is the same for both vehicles ergo; a valid insurance card was produced. I already tried the later through early resolution over the phone with prosecutor- no go :(
The ticket I'm fighting is failure to produce valid insurance. I was driving my common law's car for which I am primary driver. I knew it was insured and saw him put the slip in the glove box. Problem is I didn't know he had accidentally switched the slips so the one for his truck was in the car and vice versa. My question is should I argue that it should not be my ticket (not MY car or MY insurance) or like he says, the policy # is the same for both vehicles ergo; a valid insurance card was produced.
I already tried the later through early resolution over the phone with prosecutor- no go
I think that you will be believed that it was an honest mistake on the part of your relative that the slips got mixed up that may help when asking for a lower fine, but since this an absolute liability offence if you go to trial and you will certainly be found guilty because the ticket was correctly written to you. The prosecutor will correctly say that as a driver you are responsible for making sure that you have all the documents in order before you operate the car and you did not independently examine them to make sure they were. Out of curiosity: What did the drivers abstract show? Any convictions for this in the past?
I think that you will be believed that it was an honest mistake on the part of your relative that the slips got mixed up that may help when asking for a lower fine, but since this an absolute liability offence if you go to trial and you will certainly be found guilty because the ticket was correctly written to you. The prosecutor will correctly say that as a driver you are responsible for making sure that you have all the documents in order before you operate the car and you did not independently examine them to make sure they were.
Out of curiosity:
What did the drivers abstract show? Any convictions for this in the past?
As you can see the section places the responsibility on the operator (i.e. driver) to have the documentation. Confusingly if there was no insurance on the car, the owner would be charged instead of the driver. Even though the slip wasn't for the exact vehicle you were driving, I'm wondering if you still didn't meet the requirements of clause B. You had evidence that you, the operator, were insured.
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.
As you can see the section places the responsibility on the operator (i.e. driver) to have the documentation. Confusingly if there was no insurance on the car, the owner would be charged instead of the driver.
Even though the slip wasn't for the exact vehicle you were driving, I'm wondering if you still didn't meet the requirements of clause B. You had evidence that you, the operator, were insured.
It could be read that way Stanton but I do not think (b) will apply because the insurance slip most likely does not show the the operators name in this case. I believe (b) is intended to cover fleets with blanket policies where the vehicle is not named. They usually read as: Any vehicle owned or operated by employees of X.
It could be read that way Stanton but I do not think (b) will apply because the insurance slip most likely does not show the the operators name in this case.
I believe (b) is intended to cover fleets with blanket policies where the vehicle is not named. They usually read as: Any vehicle owned or operated by employees of X.
I don't have convictions for this in the past. ynotp is correct that (b) does not apply. Prosecutor said that on the phone. What Stanton said made me think of this: What do you think of me asking the officer on the stand if she charged the owner of the car for having the car on the road uninsured? When she says no I can ask, why not? Proving she knew it was insured or was negligent.
I don't have convictions for this in the past.
ynotp is correct that (b) does not apply. Prosecutor said that on the phone. What Stanton said made me think of this:
What do you think of me asking the officer on the stand if she charged the owner of the car for having the car on the road uninsured? When she says no I can ask, why not? Proving she knew it was insured or was negligent.
It's not relevant to your charge and would be a separate issue. You CAN still be charged as the driver for failing to produce proof of insurance even if the owner never insured the vehicle.
Limivi wrote:
What do you think of me asking the officer on the stand if she charged the owner of the car for having the car on the road uninsured? When she says no I can ask, why not? Proving she knew it was insured or was negligent.
It's not relevant to your charge and would be a separate issue. You CAN still be charged as the driver for failing to produce proof of insurance even if the owner never insured the vehicle.
Thanks Stanton. Do you know if the officer can tell if the car was insured when she looked up the policy number at her car? Or how can I find that out?
Thanks Stanton. Do you know if the officer can tell if the car was insured when she looked up the policy number at her car? Or how can I find that out?
Police have some access to some insurance information from their car, but it's limited. Sometimes they can confirm a car is insured but sometimes it will say unknown. The only certain way for officers to check is to contact the actual insurance provider. You'd simply have to ask the officer on the stand. Again though even if she verified the vehicle was insured, it doesn't negate your requirement to have the required paper documentation.
Police have some access to some insurance information from their car, but it's limited. Sometimes they can confirm a car is insured but sometimes it will say unknown. The only certain way for officers to check is to contact the actual insurance provider. You'd simply have to ask the officer on the stand. Again though even if she verified the vehicle was insured, it doesn't negate your requirement to have the required paper documentation.
I understand. Thank you again for answering. Are you a cop? Why do you think she gave me this ticket? I find it so petty, and a waste of everyone's time. I find it hard to believe that the prosecutor didn't just drop it too. Really I did nothing wrong. Pulled over for speeding when I wasn't and given a ticket for, well you know. I hope the J.O.P. Sees it my way.
I understand. Thank you again for answering.
Are you a cop? Why do you think she gave me this ticket? I find it so petty, and a waste of everyone's time. I find it hard to believe that the prosecutor didn't just drop it too. Really I did nothing wrong. Pulled over for speeding when I wasn't and given a ticket for, well you know.
It would be a complete guess as to why the officer issued you the ticket. At the end of the day some officers are more lenient and others are more strict in ensuring motorists comply with the law. Some will stop you for 10 over, others won't blink until you're going 30 over. If the officer stopped you for speeding she may have given you the insurance ticket in lieu of the somewhat more serious speeding charge. Don't count on the J.P. doing anything because you feel the charge is petty. At the end of the day their job is simply to determine if you committed the offence or not. They might give you a seriously reduced fine if they feel it's minor, but the conviction still goes on your record and can impact your insurance rates, etc. What jurisdiction did this happen in? Busy places like Toronto will sometimes withdraw the charge if you show the Crown proof of valid insurance prior to trial. Less busy places will actually run the trial.
It would be a complete guess as to why the officer issued you the ticket. At the end of the day some officers are more lenient and others are more strict in ensuring motorists comply with the law. Some will stop you for 10 over, others won't blink until you're going 30 over. If the officer stopped you for speeding she may have given you the insurance ticket in lieu of the somewhat more serious speeding charge.
Don't count on the J.P. doing anything because you feel the charge is petty. At the end of the day their job is simply to determine if you committed the offence or not. They might give you a seriously reduced fine if they feel it's minor, but the conviction still goes on your record and can impact your insurance rates, etc.
What jurisdiction did this happen in? Busy places like Toronto will sometimes withdraw the charge if you show the Crown proof of valid insurance prior to trial. Less busy places will actually run the trial.
Not to sound like a jerk but as the operator of a motor vehicle you have certain obligations...making sure the vehicle is mechanically sound and that certain documentation is kept with the vehicle while it is in operation is required by various provincial acts. These are not new requirements. You have to check the insurance and registration documents roughly once a year, and as the primary driver of the vehicle I don't think this is a particularly onerous requirement. You were, by your own admission, operating a vehicle without the certificate of insurance and received a ticket for that. The fact that you do consider this a "petty" matter may have contributed to your receiving the ticket instead of just a warning to get your paperwork in order.
Not to sound like a jerk but as the operator of a motor vehicle you have certain obligations...making sure the vehicle is mechanically sound and that certain documentation is kept with the vehicle while it is in operation is required by various provincial acts. These are not new requirements.
You have to check the insurance and registration documents roughly once a year, and as the primary driver of the vehicle I don't think this is a particularly onerous requirement.
You were, by your own admission, operating a vehicle without the certificate of insurance and received a ticket for that.
The fact that you do consider this a "petty" matter may have contributed to your receiving the ticket instead of just a warning to get your paperwork in order.
I guess they're not too busy in Sault Ste Marie. Mugwug, did you read my original? We got the car in sept. Ticket in December. Was actually still driving the old car most of the time. This was about my 3rd trip in it. I sat at the kitchen table with him and watched him load the two plastic pockets with the new ins. Slips. Watched him put the pockets in the glove compartments. Could not have known he accidentally switched them. Would YOU have checked them? I still find it unreasonable and am hung up on this waste of time and resources. I'll get over it.
I guess they're not too busy in Sault Ste Marie.
Mugwug, did you read my original? We got the car in sept. Ticket in December. Was actually still driving the old car most of the time. This was about my 3rd trip in it.
I sat at the kitchen table with him and watched him load the two plastic pockets with the new ins. Slips. Watched him put the pockets in the glove compartments. Could not have known he accidentally switched them. Would YOU have checked them?
I still find it unreasonable and am hung up on this waste of time and resources. I'll get over it.
I understand how you feel, but just be careful with your demeanour in Court. As petty as it may seem to you, the prosecutors and J.P.'s take this all very seriously. If they feel you're downplaying the offence, they probably won't cut you any slack. I'd liken it to when you have an argument with your significant other; even when you're right its sometimes just easier to say sorry and promise it won't happen again. Nothing wrong with going over the facts, talking about how you barely drive the vehicle and observed your spouse put what you believed to be the correct insurance slip into the vehicle. It shows you at least had some reason to believe everything was in order. Just leave out your personal feelings regarding the merits of police laying the charge.
I understand how you feel, but just be careful with your demeanour in Court. As petty as it may seem to you, the prosecutors and J.P.'s take this all very seriously. If they feel you're downplaying the offence, they probably won't cut you any slack. I'd liken it to when you have an argument with your significant other; even when you're right its sometimes just easier to say sorry and promise it won't happen again. Nothing wrong with going over the facts, talking about how you barely drive the vehicle and observed your spouse put what you believed to be the correct insurance slip into the vehicle. It shows you at least had some reason to believe everything was in order. Just leave out your personal feelings regarding the merits of police laying the charge.
Limivi, I read the OP. Due diligence is just that, you are required to have these documents in the car, the circumstances you are describing do not release you from that obligation. You made an assumption that the insurance slip was in the car, it would have taken less than a minute at any time to verify that. You failed to do so. I'm not passing any judgement on your character, simply pointing out that according to the law you are guilty of the offence you were ticketed for. If, in front of the JP, you admit the offence you ARE guilty - period. You're not presenting a defence, just an explanation - and everyone that stands in front of that JP has an explanation for why they broke the law. If you go into court with the attitude that you are the victim here and that the officer was in the wrong you're likely going to be disappointed in the outcome. In answer to your question, yes...I would (and do) check that the documentation on all three of my motor vehicles is correct and in order, and do so more frequently than once a year.
Limivi wrote:
Mugwug, did you read my original? We got the car in sept. Ticket in December. Was actually still driving the old car most of the time. This was about my 3rd trip in it.
I sat at the kitchen table with him and watched him load the two plastic pockets with the new ins. Slips. Watched him put the pockets in the glove compartments. Could not have known he accidentally switched them. Would YOU have checked them?
I still find it unreasonable and am hung up on this waste of time and resources. I'll get over it.
Limivi, I read the OP. Due diligence is just that, you are required to have these documents in the car, the circumstances you are describing do not release you from that obligation. You made an assumption that the insurance slip was in the car, it would have taken less than a minute at any time to verify that. You failed to do so.
I'm not passing any judgement on your character, simply pointing out that according to the law you are guilty of the offence you were ticketed for. If, in front of the JP, you admit the offence you ARE guilty - period. You're not presenting a defence, just an explanation - and everyone that stands in front of that JP has an explanation for why they broke the law. If you go into court with the attitude that you are the victim here and that the officer was in the wrong you're likely going to be disappointed in the outcome.
In answer to your question, yes...I would (and do) check that the documentation on all three of my motor vehicles is correct and in order, and do so more frequently than once a year.
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?
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 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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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 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.
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.
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!
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)...
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)...
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I followed the procedures mentioned in the previous threads regarding the disclosure and received it today. My court date is November 5 2009 in Whitby. After going through the notes I realized 2 things:
1- the notes are horribly illegible and difficult to read
2- I have notes from two different officers.
Now I am not sure if this means that both the officers will be at court for the hearing or…
I hope I can paint the picture with the accuracy that the truth deserves. I have no intention of just beating a ticket.. but more like beating a really unfair ticket. You decide!
I had entered Canada after a short trip downsouth through Detroit on my way to Toronto. Not being equipped with a GPS unit I had to rely on the printable poorman's version from Mapquest. I followed Huron Church Rd.,…
Need an expert advice here. 10 days ago I got a speeding ticket. Ticket has a fatal error on its face-offense not known to law. It says speeding 75km/hr in posted 60km/hr zone. What is the best way to proceed?
1. Should I completely ignore this ticket and let the JP to quash it?
2. Should I go with option 3 - request a trial and force the fatal error by not showing up at court?
My name is Brian. I am in my late 20s and live in Toronto. I do not own a car but half a dozen times a year I rent one with my Visa. (To get out of the city and go to a beach or ski for example.)
I have never drunk and drive but I face a problem and Im wondering if anyone can tell me what to do. Several months ago I was at a weekend party and had quit a bit to consume. When I stopped…
I was travelling east bound on ellesmere road and approached markham road attempting to make a right turn. All signal lights were red and cars traveling down markham road south were given the green arrow. I slowed down and attempted to make the right turn. I got ticketed by a cop who was parked in a gas station facing the intersection in a (no parking zone). I…
Crested a hill, officer coming at me, pulled a u turn and pulled me over.
I will go back and look again but I thought I was in an 80 not a 70 and I am positive I wasn't doing more than 120. My speedo read 110-115. I have aftermarket tires and rims so I assume this would be the difference.
It was around 7pm, already dark, nobody on the road but myself,…
I am looking for the case law that is commonly used when the prosecution says they only need to disclose the testing pages of a radar manual or laser manual.
I am only interested in the binding decisions (appeals court or higher?), and not in the non-binding Justice of the Peace decisions.
I was pulled over two nights ago and charged with failing to stop a stop sign. On the ticket, it says 'disobey stop sign - foil to stop' and does not say 'fail' -- something I think may be a fatal flaw? I have been driving for 12 years with no tickets, yet I live in Brampton where insurance prices are high so I do not want to be convicted as my insurance rates will spike significantly and…
A friend of mine (who is from China and with no knowledge of English at all) asked me to interpret for him on court.
He got pulled over by a stealth patrol car last october, got 3 tickets (fail to show insurance card, using cell phones and fail to stop on right for emergency vehicle) , court date is next week. He told me his insurance expired for less than a month and other charges are false…
I understand the severity of my offences, and I can't stress how much I regret it. I know I endangered the lives of myself and more importantly others. I usually do not speed and I know running late for work is an unacceptable excuse. I will be a man and accept the consequences of my actions although I would appreciate any advice for my situation.
Guys back in january i got a speeding ticket on dvp, but i am 90% sure he did not caught me on radar, i asked for disclosure request and i just received today, I have asked for: a full copy of the police officers notes, a copy of both sides of the officers copy of the ticket, witness will say statements, speed gun manual, calibration record, repair history and officer's training certificate but…
I need some help here. So today I was on my way to get my tires changed from my winter tires to my regular summer staggered set of tires. I was driving in mississauga on my way to my destination, I got pulled over by an officer where I was given a ticket for having improper mudguards. For some context, I drive a stock 2013 C63 AMG with winter tires at the time. I was never…
I'd like to start this off by saying for the last two weeks I have been browsing the forums. I'm trying to prepare myself for an early resolution meeting with a prosecutor (in Brampton, if that matters). I have a clean record and as a teacher, I always do my best to follow rules (trying to practice what I preach!)
On December 4, 2014 I was preparing to turn right at a very busy intersection.…
I have question, today I was going to work in my normal route there is a triangle intersection with my side being the only one with a stop sign.
There's a car in front me who stopped at the stop sign, and the third-side there's a incoming car with their hazard-light flashing but they don't have stop sign, yet coming in at a slow speed.
Right after the car in front me went through the stop sign,…
On my way to work this morning I received a ticket for disobey sign. I was on Hwy 10 Mississauga in the right lane. The right lane leads to the 401 and there is a sign saying Right Lane Exits. I Tried to merge left before the on ramp as did 3 other people. We all got a ticket for doing that. Is there anything I can do? I did not realize I was breaking any law it was a dotted line where I tried to…
This is my first post, before I jump right in I would like to thank the forum, members, posters and moderators for all the information posted. I feel like I have been able to learn a lot from others experiences, so thank you all.
This will be a lengthy post. But if you are dealing with a Disobey Sign HTA 182(2) - No Straight Through Intersection you may find this extremely…
Let me start this with saying that this isn't in regards to a ticket, more a discussion surrounding front license plates and learning about the rules behind them. (Most of the quote stuff is using colloquial terms, mostly because I couldn't really find a better way to describe it; it's not meant to be offensive.)
I know Ontario law/HTA mandates having a front license plate unlike some States in…
Hi Guys! I've just had my trial day yesterday. I was not at fault but was convicted anyways.
It is such a travesty! There is no justice at the traffic court. It is just a no mercy machine to part someone with his money, no common sense applies and no reasonable argument being considered. Such a shame! The justice, the policeman and the prosecutor ganged up against me. The justice kept interrupting…
Well first of all ... glad to have found the forum - hoping to find answers to 'alot' of questions
I was unfortunate in July 2010 in that I ended up rolling my 2009 Ranger three times, through a fence and landing on the roof on a rained-out road that was/is in need of proper repair in Eastern Ontario.
I was assisted out of the vehicle by the driver who was behind me.
I was traveling down the 401, noticed a speed trap, and started flashing my lights -- in order to warn oncoming drivers.
Within a 30 seconds, a car slowed, crossed the grass, and approached me from behind. Lights appeared, and I then realised that this was an officer in an undercover car.
The officer pulled me over, and while he was polite, clearly his motivation was to…
Does anyone know the specific law, statute, Charter right to refer to when a prosecutor or justice attempts to change the charge on a ticket after a trial has begun? I assume I'd object immediately (without interrupting anyone, of course) but what would be the specific legal basis of my objection?
I was right behind a school bus that looked like it was pulling over to the side in order to turn down a side street, I saw no lights so decided to go around (wide street). Was still moving as I was passing, then as I did pass I heard horn and looked back and in fact it was pulling over to p/u school kids (was a block away from my son's school, so just assumed it wouldn't be picking up kids...it…
