Incorrect Set Fine but Correct Total - Speeding 23km/h over

Hoping someone can help me with my case as follows, last day for me to chose one of the 3 options is April 26:

Got a speeding ticket in Barrie for 23 km/h over the 50km/h posted speed limit (73km/h). I said sorry to the officer. He wrote the "set fine" as 91.25 on the ticket and 111.25 as the "total payable"

What he wrote on the ticket:

Set Fine: 91.25

Total Payable: 111.25

What he should have written according to the speeding fines guidelines:

Set Fine: 86.25 (since the ticket says I am 23km/h over)

Total Payable = 111.25

Note that the total is CORRECT but the set fine is wrong (91.25 instead of 86.25).

Should I do nothing in this case (chose no option), I mean does "force the fatal error" [ London (City) v. Young, 2008] apply to this scenario? My specific questions (or doubt) is that only the set fine amount is wrong, but the total payable (overall calculation) is correct.

Please advise, thanks!

Hi Musketeer,

Forcing a fatal error, as in ignoring the ticket and appealing if they get a default judgment against you, should work in your situation. There are two cases you should look at:

1. London (City) v. Young at paragraph 16 mentions situations where the set fine was wrong and the total payable was correct. http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decision ... CA0429.htm

2. R. v. Monahan et al. paragraphs 33 to 37 goes into greater detail about the issue. http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... cj298.html

Both cases indicate that an incorrect set fine is a fatal error even if the total payable is correct. If you wind up in court be sure to bring and cite both cases. I would read both of them all the way through so that you have a complete understanding of the arguments they are making in case the court has questions for you when you are making your case.

You can also do a quick case law search using the CanLii database to look at the most recent case law on the subject. http://www.canlii.org/en/index.html

Thanks a lot. I have read both cases, as per law I think it will work in my situation. I plan to do the following:

Chose option 3 and not show up in court, and file an appeal if they convict me. It is more work but increases the chances of decision in my favour.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=AhvF49Y ... et&f=false

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2008/05 ... rules.html

I have called several private ticket fighting agencies and they recommend me not to leave it un-actioned and chose option 3, and hope that the JP quashes the ticket during the trial. At the same time, they are also warning me that if I don't show up in court this could require a lot of paperwork and followup (in the appeal process, and appeals happen in a different court) so a bit nervous too...Ticketcombat makes it seem so easy, will post my experience here as I go along.

I wish there were no insurance impacts, would be glad to pay traffic department the fees and not fight...

The set fine amount and/or total payable can be amended at trial if you are present. Do nothing, file an appeal if you're convicted by default.

hatetickets, your are right. I was planning to get a trial date, and not show up in court.

Currently contemplating between two options- 1) Do nothing 2) Get a trial date and not show up. Both have same results, it will work in my favor. Can't decide which one to chose....

I did this with a red light ticket I got back in 2011 where both the set fine and total payable were wrong. I chose to ignore the ticket and did not choose option 3. I was convicted by default, but I appealed that decision and won. This is just my personal opinion but I think if you are for sure going with the London v. Young, default and appeal strategy, then you are better off doing nothing and letting the ticket go strait into the default process like I did. If you choose option 3 it will take at least 8-10 months to get a trial date that you are not even going to show up for. Then the ticket will go through the default process and then if the Justice of the Peace doesn't notice the error on the ticket you will have to appeal. Getting a date for an appeal hearing will take another 4-5 months. This could drag the whole process out for over a year. If you ignore the ticket it will go strait into the default process after 30-45 days, thus cutting out the 8-10 month wait for what will be a useless trial date. Whether you ignore the ticket your chose option 3 and then don't show up for the trial the ticket will go through the same default process, so choosing option 3 is just taking the long way around to get to exactly the same place. The only benefit to picking option 3 is if you aren't 100% sure you want to use the London v. Young strategy then it keeps your options open.

No personal experience with the process, but Id agree with Daggx that the simplest way is to do nothing. What benefit do you think there is to requesting a trial and not showing?

Daggx - thanks for sharing your personal experience and outcome!

Daggx and Stanton - The reason why I was thinking of option 3 (and some of them may be my lack of knowledge so looking for confirmations)

1) In a trial, there is a prosecutor, and he may see the ticket second time (in addition to JP) and catch the error - and quash it. I think it increases the chance but I may be using wrong assumptions

2) I can buy additional time if I go to trial. So if I am convicted and lost, I will have the record for 2 out of 3 years (since ~one year will pass in trials etc).

3) My insurance renews in July. If I do nothing and get convicted in May / June time frame, I will appeal, but someone told me even if I appeal the conviction stays on my record, insurance companies may see it in July and increase my premiums.

Above is just my logical way of thinking and it may be based on unconfirmed facts I got from talking to different people.

I would definitely like to get over with this by doing nothing, and appeal if required, max 2-3 months than having the sword hanging on my neck for a year or so by choosing option 3.

Any feedback welcome.

1) Very unlikely. Keep in mind the Crown thinks youre going to trial and would be under the impression they can simply amend the error.

2) Correct. If your strategy failed, the conviction would take longer to appear on your record and impact your insurance rates for less time.

3) I believe youre correct in that the conviction would show on your record until your appeal is successful.

Thanks Stanton, I have filed for option 3 as it was working better in my scenario. Don't want to risk a speeding ticket on my insurance record at the time of renewal.

Regarding bullet 1, I was hoping that when they call my name and I don't show up, the JP and Prosecutor will look at the ticket and probably squash it (two sets of eyes).

***Update***

I filed for option 3 and had a court appointment earlier this month. As planned, I did not show up. Called the Barrie office today and checked the status - I was told that the ticket got quashed on the court date as there was an error on the face of the ticket. Phew!!!!!

Congratulations on a good outcome! I'm glad the JP in this case quashed the ticket like they are supposed to.