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.
Am really confused about this one, this morning i got a reduced speeding ticket (80km speed in 60 zone), and in the ticket the cop wrote 10km over the speeding limit.. and it has the 'R' code in it.. and the cop said i need to pay this and it doesn't have any points on it..
im fine with paying the ticket which is only 40 dollars but my biggest concern, will it show in my record ? or only tickets…
I got a ticket for driving with handheld device in Oct 2015 and I had requested for a trial. Yesterday I received the notice of trial (notice is dated 26-Jan-2017, court of trial is Newmarket, ON) and trial date is Mar 8, 2017. Today, I have sent in a registered request for disclosure (i.e on 29-Jan-2017).
Need some help here for the 1st time speeding ticket?
Sunday morning 12:10am when I was going home from work I was doing bit speeding on Gardiner. I was going with about 130km/h. I know its fast. I always take the same way and I know where the cops hide. They always hide entrance of the highways. If I will do speeding I always look my back and did look this time too. I took gardiner…
I just have a question in regards to the summons Under Part 1 I received for an rear end accident:
I was driving on the 2 lane road, and the car in front of me suddenly stopped, I had seen the car, and so I started to brake, however I heard noise from the back and looked int o the rear view mirror and saw a huge "truck" so I decided to go right, took the feet out of brakes but couldnt…
I have searched and I know the general rule is no, barring criminal charges or tresspassing. So let me use 2 specific issues I have.
1) I have some business in some area malls after hours. Once I have pulled into the mall lot on the way to the closest door I rarely stop at stop signs unless there is a car or person nearby. (i do not carelessly speed, i do show caution, just do not fully stop) Can…
In June at 401 London and Wellington I got hit twice, speeding which I didn't realize I was doing and cell phone. The Officer made me open my purse and show him my phone. I was going to meet a Rep of my Company in Kitchener, he called I answered. WRONG! The Officer wasn't even nice. My record was clean and he slapped me twice. I sat in the car and sobbed for 20 minutes as I was scared out of…
I wanted to "reply" elsewhere...but the more appropriate areas were "locked" to replies....so, here are a couple of questions...from a newbie to this site:
1. Who ARE you? (I'm a little edgy about conversing on a forum whose ownership is not stated anywhere on an "About" page") No offense intended whatsoever. Just like to know who I'm talking with/in front of.......your honor!
You are coming off of a highway exit and there are 3 lanes: right hand lane for right hand turn; middle lane for left AND right turn (but no straight thru since it is only a three-way intersection); and left lane for left hand turn. You are first in the middle lane, signalling to make a right.
CAN YOU make a right hand turn from the middle lane on a red if the traffic is clear?
Hey everyone first off I'd like to say great website, I have been reading and it is very useful
I'm posting today as I'd like to get some feedback on my situation and have a couple of questions. Please excuse the vagueness in some areas - I don't want my case to be identifiable given the small town.
So I was driving up north and was pulled over by an OPP SUV for doing 31 over. Cop drove past me,…
Hello! I'm under 16 currently and really want to drive. I know that section 37(1) says you have to be 16, but I've read that the HTA does not apply when you are in private property, so does that mean I can drive in a parking lot if I wanted to?
I was heading northbound on my bike downtown on friday. After the east/westbound lights went red and after a long pause I decided to get a head start and proceed before the light changed to green. About a block north of me an officer stepped out of an unmarked cruiser and pulled me over and gave me a $180 ticket. Now I see on this site that I should have been given points for it..but…
Got a ticket Saturday for insecure load. The officer was a real jerk and unfair. I had nothing hanging out the sides and the load wasn't that high. Just taking some junk to the dump. I was doing 40 on Ashley St in Foxboro, 4 ways on taking my time and nothing was going to fall out. I'm thinking about fighting it. Anyone experienced this before?
So I got convicted of a dui.. I have been riding my bike in the snow and taking the bus. I am a driving enthusiast and I will be going to the race track all summer but I NEED to drive something right now!
I have done lots of research and even an electric assisted bike that a 16 year old can drive legally on the road is not an option to someone with a dui suspension.
Hey this is my first ticket so as much information that people can provide will be appreciated. I was making the drive home going around 90kph(in a 80) behind what I knew was an undercover police car. The cop abruptly pulled to the side and pulled back in behind me to pull me over. Now I reduced my speed to below 80 when the cop pulled to the side but he claimed he had me clocked at 109kph and…
So I was heading home to today and I was in the left lane of the off ramp, some lady cut across her lane of traffic and across the off ramp median and hit the back side of my car! After a few meters of bumping (I was dazed and confused) I stopped the car.
I call 911 and was told to move the car to the shoulder.
Cop comes, interviews both of us, and lets the lady go! The cop proceeds to give…
An undercover cop, well not sure if he was even a cop to be honest, maybe a constable pulled me over after I passed him shortly after a construction zone. He asked me if I was in a rush and said that he was going 105 and I was going 120. It seems mostly from our conversation that he was pissed off that I passed him, because he never told me that I was speeding. None the less the ticket says…
I got this ticket last year in toronto and received court date recently.
Basically I parket on a street where there are marked spots for car parking but they were all faded with only the white edges showing. I assumed I was in the correct spot when I got out. I never noticed the fire hydrant in the bushes.
When I returned I saw the ticket and then noticed the fire hydrant and when I to the…
I would like to know if anybody could tell me what "V" stands for on the Code section of the Form 4. I think that it will be useful to understand what information is on this form in order to make a decision on what option we should chose.
I recently received a ticket for red light fail to stop under section 144 (18) of the Highway Traffic Act at the intersection of Dupont St. and Dufferin St. in Toronto with a set fine of $150 and total payable of $190. I think I entered the intersection on a yellow, however that is not the way the officer saw it. During the traffic stop the officer was polite bordering on friendly…
Got my first ticket last Thursday and I have a couple of questions. I was driving westbound on Moore St. (west of Bayview) and made a left onto a residential street at a 4-way stop sign. It was my first time driving through that area - was driving my girlfriend to a wisdom tooth surgery.
The police were set up to catch people, as that intersection had a no left turn sign from 7-9 am (buses…
