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.
Hi, I am new to the forum. I have been trying to get information off of here and www.ticketcombat.com for my case.
I was given a ticket for going 122km/h in a posted 100km/h zone at Hwy 401 east at Thickson Rd in Whitby ON on April 10th, 2009.
I find this absolutely absurd, since I was in the left most lane of the 401 approximately(within 5km/h) following the speed of traffic in my lane. The guy in…
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…
On Wednesday I attended court at 1530 Markham Road, courtroom E2, in order to fight my speeding ticket. My original plan was to plead not guilty, and to watch all the people who went before me, the process, the Prosecutor and the Justice Of The Peace so I could strategize and form the best plan for my defence at trial. I had done some research online and sort of knew I wanted to defend myself,…
About 5 months ago I was driving along a two-way road approaching an intersection. The road had a left/ straight turning lane and a right turning lane. There was an 18 wheel gravel truck occupying the left lane at a red light. I pulled behind the truck intending to drive straight. After not moving for about 1 second, I check my rear view mirror, signaled and changed lanes to the right…
I am currently working for an auto parts delivery company and they contracted me to work as a courier.
As I left my base to make my first delivery which was less than 300 meters away from the shop, I had my seat belt off because i was under the impression, according to Section 106 Exception #6 subsection (c) of the highway traffic act, that I would be exempted from the seat belt law. The rule…
Got a ticket yesterday for "Insecure Load" contrary to HTA Sec 111(2). $160. I was pulling a utility trailer in which I had loaded a steel and wood cabinet. Total length of cabinet is 57.5". 14.75" (1/4 of the cabinet) was sticking out over the side of the trailer at about a 45 degree angle, the rest (3/4) was inside the trailer. The trailer has sides 24" high. I didn't have a tie-down or bungee…
I've been researching for months for defence strategy and basic trial information regarding my speeding ticket. However, the information is so conflicting that I have no confidence whatsoever that I know what I'm doing.
I didn't get this info from a friend of a friend, it came from this website, court officials, case laws, and a consultation with a traffic ticket fighting company.
So I was driving east bound pulling an empty tandem trailer on a gravel highway. Eventually I caught up to a truck pulling a fifth wheel. The speed limit was 70km/h and I don't quite remember but I'm almost 100% that the guy in front of me was driving at 60km/h. After being behind him for a few kilometers and getting two cracks in my windshield from rocks off his tires, I decided to pass him. I…
I have been driving for over 10 years without any tickets and accidents what so ever. Unfortunately my luck ran out this past Friday; when the officer pulled me over doing 80 in a 50 zone in Mississauga, Ontario. Officer was very friendly and polite not to mention nice enough to reduce the charge to 15KM.
On the speeding ticket it now says doing 65km in a 50 zone. Never having a speeding…
hi everyone im just wondering if its right for a cop to have my car impounded and give me a traffic ticket for improper plates when my car didnt leave my property, yes i knew the plates werent to my car but on private property it dont matter aslong as it dosent go onto public property. am i right with this that i shouldnt have gotten the ticket or my car impounded?????????????
Have been busy and haven't had much time to follow up on this...
Went to court having not received disclosure (and was not organized enough to apply for a stay), so the trial was adjourned. They photocopied the officer's ticket and notes and provided a log sheet from the plane. I've sent another request for the rest of the disclosure items.
So here's my question -- can an officer amend the ticket…
Hi guys, I got pulled over last night and was ticketed with HTA 172, I was going 157 on a 100 on 400N and was wondering what I should do. I was using cruise control but the guy in the lane to my left was driving into my lane irresponsibly to I sped up to get ahead of him and just my luck that's when an OPP cruiser pulled up behind me flashing his lights. My court date is at the end of the month…
If anyone can answer this I would greatly appreciate it.
Friday morning I checked my mail and received a letter from the MTO stating that under section 47(1) of the HTA the Registrar of Motor Vehicles has decided to suspend my driving privilege for medical reasons. This was due to a report submitted by a physician in compliance with section 203 of the HTA. Enclosed with that letter were forms to…
Ok so looking for some advice in regards to my wife's speeding ticket 120k in 100 (I was in vehicle so witnessed most - but was resting at initial clock.)
whats the likelihood of positive outcome of an 11b (or an officer no show, which I suspect doesn't really happen as much as web/Ads would have you believe) of 8months.
Wife REALLY doesn't want to go, and of course I'm the one doing all of the…
I know I shouldn't have driving but I slept at my buddies' place and I thought I was ok to drive in the morning.. needless to say I still drove and got pulled over.
Background details:
I was pulled over in the morning last week, apparently going 120 km/hr on 90km Northbound DVP. Two cop cars tailed me for a bit, saw them in my rearview mirror while on the left lane, slowed down to…
I got two tickets on Feb 20 2011. One for red light, and the other for Stop sign. I knew I had a good chance at getting off on the red light, because the officer couldn't actually see the light facing me. He was at an opposite angle, further up the street.
I set a court date for both tickets. On April 22 I moved to a new place. I went to the Service Ontario location and renewed my licence…
Winnipeg's police officers have been told to issue more traffic tickets, in part to increase revenue.
And a union representing cops says the move could hurt their efforts to curb the city's gang violence.
Police Chief Keith McCaskill said last night he -- and he alone, without input from Mayor Sam Katz -- recently made the call to patrolling officers and to those in specialized units to step up…
I'm wondering if anyone could enlighten me on what to do about the following scenario:
I was pulled over by a YRP constable because I only had one front head light working. Upon being pulled over, I also realized my insurance card was expired by one month and my car permit was not on me at all. (It doesn't matter now but my valid insurance card was sitting at home in an envelope…
I have a wicked prosecutor in my area, he is an evil man and will lie and cheat, whatever is necessary for him to win. I got a yellow light infraction ticket and the cop was a no show. I requested the charge dismissed and it went like this:
Me: I request the charge be dismissed because the officer is not here
Prosecutor: No, we are going to adjourn the trial so the officer can attend
Accident happened at a regular intersection with turning lanes and lights. I was turning left. The light turned yellow, and the car approaching sped up to make the light. I thought he was stopping, so i made the turn. At the time of the collision the light was red.
I understand that it is my fault. I'm just wondering what my best course of action is.
alright well to get started ive developed a passion for longboarding
for those of you who dont already know a longboard is a big skateboard too heavy for tricks and stuff but boy can they ever go fast
my hobbies include going up the escarpment here in hamilton and stoney creek and riding down the roads leading to the lower part of the city. just wondering here. what would happen if i was going down…
My court date is nearing at old city hall at appeals court.
iwhats going to happen and what do i do?
do I present my certificate of offence and point out to the judge the fine was incorrect, I did not appear and am now appealing on the grounds the Justice of the peace erred and failed to quash the ticket on the basis of the certificate not being properly examined and is not complete and regular on…
.