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 so I have a bizzare situation. Today I received a summons for "being the owner of a motor vehicle bearing Vehicle Identification Number ###, failed to submit the vehicle, equipment or drawn vehicle for inspection or tests as required by an officer" for a vehicle I previously owned. Apparently a violation of HTA 82(9).
The date of offense is June 15, the summons was issued on October 26th and I…
Hi, I need some help for the ticket of lmproper left turn.
When i drove my car from east to west, intending to make a left turn and stop in front of stop line. There was a car in front of me, which has turn on yellow light. The light was turning red and then I thought I cannot leave in the intersection and turned, an incoming car was runing the light and hit me. No one got hurt but both cars had…
Have a ticket in which the radar used was a Genesis VP Directional. I had downloaded the manual for a Genesis VP but I now realize that the unit is not the same so it is the wrong manual. My trial is very soon so I do not have time to ask for disclosure of the manual.
Does anyone have access to an electronic version of the manual for Genesis VP Directional?
I was pulled over today in the city of Oakville for going 75 in a 40 zone. However, I am 100 percent certain that I was going only 50 in the 40 zone. When I was pulled over, I was driving my Dad's car which I felt was the reason I was getting stopped since two teenagers driving a 2013 S Class. He asked does I know why I am being pulled over and I…
I really need help on fighting my 9 tickets i received from one police officer. Here is some background of what happened!
I was caught speeding 66km on a 40km (school zone) on January 29, 2010. I was driving my friend's car and turns out she didnt renew the validation on the vehicle and didnt leave the up to date insurance paper on the car.
Hey question that I think here's probably the best place to get the answer:
I was charged with a careless driving offence in oct, trail in early april, so as of right now my insurance record is 100% clean... except the officer did file an accident report at the scene where I was classified at fault due to it being PI (although very minor). The person I hit did not sue etc, so the insurance company…
Very much unintentionally passed a stopped bus, with sign and flashing lights. Didn't realize I had done it until I was at the end of the bus. I'll save you my sob story, but it was truly accidental. I'm generally very cautious and have a perfect driving record. Never been stopped.
While I realize if a cop had seen me that I would have gotten a ticket, there were none in sight. Though I may very…
I was recently pulled over for running a red and I wasnt able to find my wallet in the car at the time to hand over my license. I had a passport in the vehicle that he used. The wallet was in the vehicle, it just fell through the seats. (Tough to find a black leather wallet in a black/black leather truck at night).
The officer still wrote the tickets for both he signed the one ticket (failure to…
I was passing a vehicle that was going slow for me and there was an oncoming vehicle coming at me. I speed up to get around the person I was passing and the oncoming vehicle turns out to be a cop who turns around and tickets me for going 110km in a 80km zone. How does it work with passing a vehicle? Once I passed the vehicle I went back down to my original speed of just under 100. The officer…
I picked up a brand new (old stock) Fuzzbuster a while ago at auction (wopping $5!!) and I want to mount it on the dash of my old GTO as a cool accessory when I show it at car shows. But I'm not sure if it's legal or not.
Here's my thoughts:
- It is early 70's technology (x-band) so it won't detect modern police radar. That's assuming no police force uses the old x-band frequency.
Hi guys, I'm still a little in shock of getting my first traffic ticket...
On Monday afternoon, I was returning from Toronto to Ottawa on HW416, I was driving about 15 over 100 like always. Then a car came very close to me on the left lane and made me nervous, I speed up unintentionally to pass the car and change lane, but while doing that a police car pull out of the median. He was hiding in…
May i ask this question regarding transport trucks limited to 105 km/h. Moving road blocks or safety?
IMO it isnt speed that kills. I find transport trucks infact help keep the road going. With cars that choose to not move to the right and slow down the middle lane the trucks would try to pass in their passing lane therefore the slower traffic would move right.
Received a notice from the police that a motion is being put forward to adjourn upcoming trial date. Notice indicates that an officer has sworn an affidavit that the crucial witness cannot attend date trial is set for (we know there is a social engagement at 7:30 pm for the witness, trial time is 1:30 pm). This further delay is a big problem to my daughter's case. She is moving away to…
This is what happened. I was travelling west on a four lane city street that was very light with traffic. I was making a left hand turn into a wide driveway of a business. There was traffic lights about 100 yards past the driveway and were red for the east-west traffic. I was in the left lane with my signal on and there was no oncoming traffic due to the red light. I was slowed right down…
I was driving my families older car and got pulled over, and the police officer informed me my plate was dirty. He issued me a ticket of $110 for the 13(2) act and obstruct plate as the offense. He informed me that such a plate could be used to avoid red lights as well as 407 tolls, also that buying a new plate can help to lower the ticket if I fight the charge, and that he also took a picture…
I received a red light camera ticket. In the picture, you see an ambulance in front of me with flashing lights. I had moved to alleviate the traffic behind me for the emergency vehicles coming behind it.
Is this a possible defense, if so, does anyone know any good case law to justify this position?
what happens if they charge someone for driving at 151Km/hr in montreal and they put for trial, appear after some months and sadly lost the trial ?
In montreal its $300 fine and 5demerit points ...
I heard Ontario and Qubec share the information. So once the trial is over ( and when the file moved to ontario) will his car gets towed and licence get suspended for 7days (later to 30 days ) ? and he…
I got a notice in the mail that trial is set four weeks from today, so it's time to request disclosure. I have zero chance of getting an 11b since trial is less than two months after the offense date and the officer did not reduce the charge. I really want to try and create delays on the trial, to reduce the chance of the officer showing up on multiple occasions. Is there any known loop-holes…
This weekend my father was involved in an accident with a transit bus in Burlington, ON. After the police showed up he was charged with "Fail to obey stop sign" Sec. 136(1)(a). At this particular intersection there NO stop signs but there are traffic lights. There is construction going on there so one of the light posts is smaller.
Driving conditions were terribly wet and visibility was low.…
So my boyfriend and I recently started dating. I have a vehicle that was insured. Insurance cost too much and I found it was just as easy to walk to work due to how close it was. But I didn't want to get rid of my car just yet, plus I'm still making payments on it as well. When we moved into our appartment together, I had it towed to my parking spot out back.
I was making a left hand legal turn on a green light, a driver came through the lane I was supposed to be going into ran the red and hit me head on as I was turning into my lane. When the officer came he was telling me that I was racing and driving recklessly because apparently there was reports of street racing in the area. I was not charged on the scene for this but I'm scared i am going to be…
I got a ticket for failure to surrender insurance because I did not have my new insurance stubs with me, just a bunch of expired ones. My policy number has not changed, so I asked the officer to just run the policy number so I could prove that I was in fact insured. He said they don't have that ability, handed me the ticket and reminded me that my car could have been impounded.
So I'm in a bit of a pickle and would appreciate if someone could clarify something for me.
I'm less than a month away (test on April 6th) from getting my full G license, and got a speeding ticket recently. The ticket was for 49km/h over the posted limit of 100km/h on the 403 in Oakville/Halton region, but was reduced from the initial ~60km/h over.
