hello all,

I recently received a speeding ticket for going 67 in a posted 50. However when the officer filled in my address on the ticket he wrote down the completely wrong city. I have people telling me that i do not have to pay the ticket because of this. Can anyone please tell me if this is true or not????? let me know. Also the cop never asked for my insurance, just my license. Does that make sense?

Thank you,

-Mark

I heard where the cop can still make some changes to the ticket after the fact, but not too sure on how that works.

I would say a plea bargain for this type of case.

Your address can be fixed in court. If the location of the infraction is wrong then you have a case to have the ticket thrown out.

admin wrote:

I heard where the cop can still make some changes to the ticket after the fact, but not too sure on how that works.

That's a huge no no and will get the ticket tossed quick.

Mark, check out my site for information on fatal errors. If your driver's license is correct, then they can still find you and fine you. The wrong city likely will not be a fatal error. But like Reflections says, the wrong offence location is a fatal error.

Admin is right, you can easily plea bargain this down to 15km/h or below, which means a lower fine and no points. But it's still a conviction on your driving record and it has insurance implications.

dekm wrote:

hello all,

I recently received a speeding ticket for going 67 in a posted 50. However when the officer filled in my address on the ticket he wrote down the completely wrong city. I have people telling me that i do not have to pay the ticket because of this. Can anyone please tell me if this is true or not????? let me know,

Thank you,

-Mark

years ago i had ticket such as yours.

At that time you had to wait until you were called.

Then as they started reading the charge you object and say there is no jurisdiction. (wrong city/town)

If they read the charge before you mention it they will just amend the city.

It worked for me but this was about 20 years ago.

Cheers

viper1

It worked for me but this was about 20 years ago.

You are so 1900's.......

Next thing you know you'll wanna duel with pistols at 10 paces.....

ticketcombat wrote:

admin wrote:

I heard where the cop can still make some changes to the ticket after the fact, but not too sure on how that works.

That's a huge no no and will get the ticket tossed quick..

Absolutely a fatal error PLUS is a loss of credibility of that officer in court.

Plain and simple, own up to the error that was made on the ticket, learn from it and move on. Then again, there would never be court if drivers did that!!

TC...speaking of face value of a PON. What about the signature? I have two ways of thinking on this.

1) Sign the top copy, identical signature is complete thru each layer of the PON, thus all are original and identical

or

2) Rip out the defendants copy and sign it in ink, then sign the top of the PON, thru the remaining copies. But does this then not make the signature on the defendants copy different from the top and not a true copy thereof? Or is it this makes it an official copy for the defendant.

thoughts?

TC...speaking of face value of a PON. What about the signature? I have two ways of thinking on this.

1) Sign the top copy, identical signature is complete thru each layer of the PON, thus all are original and identical

or

2) Rip out the defendants copy and sign it in ink, then sign the top of the PON, thru the remaining copies. But does this then not make the signature on the defendants copy different from the top and not a true copy thereof? Or is it this makes it an official copy for the defendant.

The best thing: Legibility. Choice #1 is my bet.

Reflections wrote:

It worked for me but this was about 20 years ago.

You are so 1900's.......

Next thing you know you'll wanna duel with pistols at 10 paces.....

There must still be some kind of jurisdiction needed?(no?)

I had quite a few tickets back then and most of the things I learned were in court.

Way back then if you were pleading not-guilty you had to sit until the end.

It gave me a lot of insight as to what to expect.

I took notes and watched what others did right or wrong and used there

methods when they got to me.

Maybe jurisdiction is not needed any more. What do I know..

I had 9 wins and 1 "reduction of price" out of ten.

If it was close the judge ordered a game of five minute chess to determine the winner.

Dueling went out in the mid 60's.(too cold)

Cheers

Viper1

P.S. I am going to try and find out how they establish jurisdiction now-a-days.

There must still be some kind of jurisdiction needed?(no?)

OPP can arrest/enforce anywhere in Ontario, no questions...... i.e. the officer in the traffic plane, he flies over the 401, 400 and 11.......and has to testify in all the regions. Local officers, i.e. Toronto Police, have never bothered me on a 4-series highway.

Now if you do something more then speeding, like say drunk driving, careless..etc...... They may feel the need to overstep lines on a map.

Reflections wrote:

There must still be some kind of jurisdiction needed?(no?)

OPP can arrest/enforce anywhere in Ontario, no questions...... i.e. the officer in the traffic plane, he flies over the 401, 400 and 11.......and has to testify in all the regions. Local officers, i.e. Toronto Police, have never bothered me on a 4-series highway.

Now if you do something more then speeding, like say drunk driving, careless..etc...... They may feel the need to overstep lines on a map.

DEKEM was saying 67 in a 50?

Yes opp have jurisdiction in all places.(ontario)

I don't think he got this ticket from an opp.

Regional cops need jurisdiction.

RCMP have all over canada.

He probably got the ticket in gta area.

Cheers

Viper1

RCMP have all over canada.

Yep but they don't enforce provincial laws, OHTA for example.

hwybear wrote:

TC...speaking of face value of a PON. What about the signature? I have two ways of thinking on this.

1) Sign the top copy, identical signature is complete thru each layer of the PON, thus all are original and identical

or

2) Rip out the defendants copy and sign it in ink, then sign the top of the PON, thru the remaining copies. But does this then not make the signature on the defendants copy different from the top and not a true copy thereof? Or is it this makes it an official copy for the defendant.

thoughts?

This is actually a very complicated question. Hopefully without creating a doctoral thesis, here are my thoughts.

For defaults (the defendant doesn't show up in court or doesn't respond to the ticket), two of the three justices in London (City) v. Young, 2008 thought that the information on the certificate and the notice should be the same. They rejected an earlier ruling, York (Municipality) v. Wilson, 2005 CanLII 47712 (ON S.C.) that said the top copy and the one the defedant gets have different purposes. The third justice dissented and supported York v. Wilson that they don't have to be the same.

S.3(2) of the POA states that you are competing the certificate and signing it and then either completing the notice or a summons. For administrative expediency, it's in a carbon copy form so you only have to do it once for a Part 1 ticket. So "theoretically" after completing the certificate, you are "next" completing the notice which is a separate requirement and should be signed. I think the carbon copy method is "practically" accepted as sufficient and expedient.

S. 90 of the POA states that at trial the court must address any irregularity between the two (notice and certificate) which misleads the defendant.

There are some living on the fringe of the (mostly US) law that argue that what you are getting into is either an International Maritime Contract or a "common law" contract situation between the Crown and the defendant. See this example. They argue contracts need to be signed. If you ever sign a contract, buy a house or watch politicians sign a peace accord, everyone signs multiple copies so that each has an original signature version. So the thinking here is that the missing original signature voids the contract. They even go further to assert that international maritime law gives you seven days to dispute the contract, that is you dispute entering into a contract and therefore are not obligated to deal with or pay the ticket. Again this is mostly US thinking but is gaining popularity here.

So do you sign twice? The latest ruling says it should be exactly the same, just sign the top copy. I think signing each copy is more complete but that raises the possibility of further discrepancies between the two copies.

Of course, six months from now there'll be a new ruling and new procedures to follow.

Reflections wrote:

Yep but they don't enforce provincial laws, OHTA for example.

They can if they've been "deputized." Most, if not all, of RCMP in Ottawa have been deputized as they also do traffic enforcement on NCC roads, such as the Ottawa River Parkway, Aviation Parkway, etc.

Police Jurisdiction = none

An OPP, Municipal Officer, First Nations Officer, CN Officer, CP officer can enforce all laws ANYWHERE in the Province.

RCMP is sworn in Canada wide.