I just had my day in court trying to defend my wife against a speeding ticket ... of course no luck in court (found guilty), but the Officer testified (under oath of course) that there were speed limit signs posted every 900m along that section of the road (four lanes plus center turn lane, municipal area, 50km/h zone, no community safety zone, etc). This fact was not in his notes, and I must admit I wasn't prepared for it, so didn't challenge him on the point. RRO Reg 615 requires speed limit signs every 900m on a street with the typical 50km/h limit where the road is more than 1,500m in total length (as was the case there), so he was obviously trying to convince the Justice that everything was kosher with the stop.

Afterwards, I took a drive with my son - he videotaped and I measured with the odometer, and found out that along a 3.4km stretch of that city road (Yonge Street northbound north of Big Bay), there was only ONE speed limit sign. So, a couple of questions:

- the Officer clearly perjured himself (he also made some other false statements that I can prove) ... on appeal, can I have his testimony (the only evidence the Prosecutor produced) thrown out based on the fact that he was an unreliable witness

- is the lack of minimum adequate signage (in line with what he testified in court) as required under RRO Reg 615 to the Highway Traffic Act a basis to have the case thrown out, and can I introduce this evidence on appeal, given that he brought it up in the initial hearing?

I did some other checking in our city (Barrie, for anyone else who has been recently caught), and EVERY street that I checked didn't have the required minimum signage. On one street (Anne Street South heading north), there was a stretch of 3,400 meters without a single speed limit sign. This is clearly a pervasive problem in Barrie - does anyone see a potential for a class action lawsuit against the City by drivers that have been caught up in this web over the years?

If the 50 km/h maximum was "within a local municipality or within a built-up area" as per section 128(1)(a) there is no requirement to post any signs. There is only a requirement under section 2(1) of that regulation to post signs "where a maximum rate of speed other than that prescribed by subsection 128 (1) of the Act is prescribed"

Under section 128 of the HTA there are several statuary maximum speeds that dont require the posting of any signs.

Thanks for your reply. Certainly section 2(1) of Reg 615 covers variances from the limit prescribed under 128(1) of the Act, but my reading of 2(2) and 2(3) appears to specifically cover situations where the speed limit IS in fact the limit as per 128(1):

(2) Where the maximum rate of speed for a highway in a built-up area more than 1,500 metres in length is that prescribed by subsection 128 (1) of the Act, speed limit signs shall be erected on the highway not more than 900 metres apart. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 615, s. 2 (2).

(3) Where the maximum rate of speed for a highway in a built-up area 1,500 metres or less in length is that prescribed by subsection 128 (1) of the Act, speed limit signs shall be erected on the highway not more than 300 metres apart. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 615, s. 2 (3).

Am I misreading something here?

You're misreading it. There is no need to post signs in a built up area unless the maximum speed is something other than the statutory maximum of 50 km/h. Likewise there is no need to post 80 km/h in the more rural areas. You might also want to check the Bylaw for Barrie. All of their speed variations are in it. If a street isn't listed, it's 50 km/h

I was confused too, but as I now understand it, the key word in the regulations is "prescribed". 128 (1) allows a prescribed speed only via (d):

(d) the rate of speed prescribed for motor vehicles on a highway in accordance with subsection (2), (5), (6), (6.1) or (7);

128 (1) a,b,c are "normative", as it were, vs. "prescriptive".

It would be nice if our laws and regulations could be easily understood by us mere mortals, but that's a story for another day.

So a City NEVER needs to post a speed limit if it is a 50 zone? Unbelievable.

It still doesn't explain why the Officer perjured himself by claiming there were speed limit signs every 900m, when in fact there was only one sign over a 3km stretch.

Thanks for the clearer explanation.

You're right; it still doesn't explain why the officer would testify that there were signs. If you really want to pursue that angle, you have the right to request an investigation. It won't change your verdict.

mikemish wrote:

So a City NEVER needs to post a speed limit if it is a 50 zone? Unbelievable.

It's not really unbelievable, it actually makes a lot of sense in terms of cost savings, etc.

Not at all trying to be snarky or trolling here... just wondering, as a former driving instructor, how it come to pass that you didn't know this fact. Where I worked, the 50/80 rules were discussed several times in classroom, and our instructors reinforced it on the road. Was this not addressed when you learned to drive, or perhaps you didn't learn in Ontario? Just wondering...