I was recently ticketed in Barrie in a pemanently-posted 40 kph zone. It is possibly the only permanently-posted 40 kph zone in the entire jurisdiction (the rest being time-of-day enforced around schools etc) so, not surprisingly, its also a posted CSZ. The reading was taken with a LIDAR measurement device and I was shown the device display 1st thing upon stopping road-side. Upon running my numbers, the officer would have seen that my 30+ year-old driving record is very good and DEFINITELY not-indicative of habitual speeding and/or reckless driving. He none the less issued a ticket, seemingly for the maximum permissible fine. I've lived nearby for 10+ years and am not opposed to the existence of the zone I was stopped in nor its close supervision, as I have two younger children who will soon begin traveling on their own around the neighborhood etc. Although the issuing officer identified himself as a full-time traffic cop (and thus will likely show in-court if-needed) I plan on choosing option 3 and fighting the ticket as I like many others am concerned about the black eye on my otherwise-good record , insurance rates etc. As I tick off the "Option 3" box on my ticket, and prepare to mail it to court (is that a good idea?) was hoping someone could answer a couple of questions regarding the ticket itself and possible arguments/defences I am considering. 1. Although my ticket doesn't seem to indicate such and, since the issuing officer said nothing about, it appears I may be on the hook for Demerits, if the fine sticks. How can I find out? 2. Does the HTA rule on the requirements for, and deployment of. roadside traffic signs? Is it a requirement that all Reduced Speed Zones (RSZ's) be additionally-signed with "Reduced Speed Ahead" (RSA) warning signs on the approaches? Although I can imagine it would be fiscally-beneficial for municipalities to not warn drivers of RSZ's, based on the ensuing increase in speed fines that would likely be handed out, I would think the safety issue alone (i,.e. drivers hammering on brakes as they frantically try to slow down upon entering an RSZ they were not warned about) would be sufficient cause for making RSA signs mandatory. Based on what I've seen elsewhere around Barrie and, as nice as the folks up here might be, I doubt the City would waste taxpayer's money installing RSA signs on the approaches of virtually all their other RSZ's, unless they were required to (as indeed it appears they have). Likely outcome if I'm successful in arguing the RSZ I was ticketed in, is non-compliant? 3. Using info from Google Streetview I can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the issuing officer had line-of-sight to my vehicle while I was still in a 50 kph posted speed zone, well before I entered the CSZ and the 40 kph speed zone. Coupling that with info I obtained from the City of Barrie official website, I'm able to establish that the advance line-of-sight distance was at-least 100m and that 10 secs or more would likely have elapsed before I in-fact entered the area where I purpotedly sped. Do I have a snowball's chance of arguing that the issuing officer could have acquired/recorded my speed outside the 40 kph zone and the CSZ? Other than verbal rebuttal (his word against mine) would the officer likely have indisputable evidence he could produce, to definitively argue away that possibility? If not, is the possibility alone, enough to justify reasonable doubt? If the judge/JP buys it, do I risk getting fined instead for 66 in a 50 zone, and no CSZ? And what about the Demerits I possibly stood to get? 4. It turns out that, just before being pulled over, I had stopped at a business approx 150 m from the beginning of the CSZ/40 zone and, moments before I alegedly sped, I had in-fact just entered the roadway from that business's parking lot (i.e. standing start). I drive a 100 hp 4-cylinder compact car with 200k milleage, so it doesn't take an expert to understand that I would litterally have to stand on the accelerator for the whole 150m run-up to the beginning of the CSZ/40 zone, in order just to get to 66 kph (and yes I did go back and test/confirm this theory when the cops weren't watching). Shortly after checking my speed (my car jumps into 3rd at almost exactly 50 kph and I instinctively lay off the accelerator when I'm on city streets) I distinctly remember seeing up in the distance, the issuing officer walking into the street in my path (presumably preparing to flag me down). Indeed I can't be sure if I had even yet entered the 40 kph zone which. I suppose, plays into the officer having captured my speed "prematurely" as in point (3) above, and that much time, possibly 15 to 20 secs, elapsed before I finally arrived where the officer stood. In-fact at the moment the issuing officer walked out into the roadway, I was still so far away that I had no idea who he was (using an unmarked cruiser and wearing a non-descript safety vest over his jacket); Because he didn't have his hat on (no reasons I could find why so) it wasn't until I was practically at roadside that I could tell. He did not put his hat on nor did he make any attempt to further identify himself as a police officer prior to or after flagging me down. The business I stopped at is very low-key and although I did make a purchcase, I did not receive a receipt or anything with a time-stamp. The best I could come up with is a letter signed by the shop owner, claiming that he had served me at approx 9:30 that morning. The speeding ticket shows about 10 mins later however with the time it took officer to flag me down & process me etc, I'm hoping it would stll look legit. I had considered using a closer time in the letter however that would likely make mine and the shopkeeper's stories look less and less believable to the judge/JP. Sorry for being so long-winded but wanted to be clear on what happened and hopefully get good advice on which defence I should use. As I am a newbie and have never fought a ticket (always a 1st time for everything I suppose) any advice on how to handle the big event would be appreciated (including whether I should even fight it or not). Cheers- rayin Barrie
I was recently ticketed in Barrie in a pemanently-posted 40 kph zone. It is possibly the only permanently-posted 40 kph zone in the entire jurisdiction (the rest being time-of-day enforced around schools etc) so, not surprisingly, its also a posted CSZ. The reading was taken with a LIDAR measurement device and I was shown the device display 1st thing upon stopping road-side. Upon running my numbers, the officer would have seen that my 30+ year-old driving record is very good and DEFINITELY not-indicative of habitual speeding and/or reckless driving. He none the less issued a ticket, seemingly for the maximum permissible fine. I've lived nearby for 10+ years and am not opposed to the existence of the zone I was stopped in nor its close supervision, as I have two younger children who will soon begin traveling on their own around the neighborhood etc. Although the issuing officer identified himself as a full-time traffic cop (and thus will likely show in-court if-needed) I plan on choosing option 3 and fighting the ticket as I like many others am concerned about the black eye on my otherwise-good record , insurance rates etc. As I tick off the "Option 3" box on my ticket, and prepare to mail it to court (is that a good idea?) was hoping someone could answer a couple of questions regarding the ticket itself and possible arguments/defences I am considering.
1. Although my ticket doesn't seem to indicate such and, since the issuing officer said nothing about, it appears I may be on the hook for Demerits, if the fine sticks. How can I find out?
2. Does the HTA rule on the requirements for, and deployment of. roadside traffic signs? Is it a requirement that all Reduced Speed Zones (RSZ's) be additionally-signed with "Reduced Speed Ahead" (RSA) warning signs on the approaches? Although I can imagine it would be fiscally-beneficial for municipalities to not warn drivers of RSZ's, based on the ensuing increase in speed fines that would likely be handed out, I would think the safety issue alone (i,.e. drivers hammering on brakes as they frantically try to slow down upon entering an RSZ they were not warned about) would be sufficient cause for making RSA signs mandatory. Based on what I've seen elsewhere around Barrie and, as nice as the folks up here might be, I doubt the City would waste taxpayer's money installing RSA signs on the approaches of virtually all their other RSZ's, unless they were required to (as indeed it appears they have). Likely outcome if I'm successful in arguing the RSZ I was ticketed in, is non-compliant?
3. Using info from Google Streetview I can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the issuing officer had line-of-sight to my vehicle while I was still in a 50 kph posted speed zone, well before I entered the CSZ and the 40 kph speed zone. Coupling that with info I obtained from the City of Barrie official website, I'm able to establish that the advance line-of-sight distance was at-least 100m and that 10 secs or more would likely have elapsed before I in-fact entered the area where I purpotedly sped. Do I have a snowball's chance of arguing that the issuing officer could have acquired/recorded my speed outside the 40 kph zone and the CSZ? Other than verbal rebuttal (his word against mine) would the officer likely have indisputable evidence he could produce, to definitively argue away that possibility? If not, is the possibility alone, enough to justify reasonable doubt? If the judge/JP buys it, do I risk getting fined instead for 66 in a 50 zone, and no CSZ? And what about the Demerits I possibly stood to get?
4. It turns out that, just before being pulled over, I had stopped at a business approx 150 m from the beginning of the CSZ/40 zone and, moments before I alegedly sped, I had in-fact just entered the roadway from that business's parking lot (i.e. standing start). I drive a 100 hp 4-cylinder compact car with 200k milleage, so it doesn't take an expert to understand that I would litterally have to stand on the accelerator for the whole 150m run-up to the beginning of the CSZ/40 zone, in order just to get to 66 kph (and yes I did go back and test/confirm this theory when the cops weren't watching). Shortly after checking my speed (my car jumps into 3rd at almost exactly 50 kph and I instinctively lay off the accelerator when I'm on city streets) I distinctly remember seeing up in the distance, the issuing officer walking into the street in my path (presumably preparing to flag me down). Indeed I can't be sure if I had even yet entered the 40 kph zone which. I suppose, plays into the officer having captured my speed "prematurely" as in point (3) above, and that much time, possibly 15 to 20 secs, elapsed before I finally arrived where the officer stood. In-fact at the moment the issuing officer walked out into the roadway, I was still so far away that I had no idea who he was (using an unmarked cruiser and wearing a non-descript safety vest over his jacket); Because he didn't have his hat on (no reasons I could find why so) it wasn't until I was practically at roadside that I could tell. He did not put his hat on nor did he make any attempt to further identify himself as a police officer prior to or after flagging me down.
The business I stopped at is very low-key and although I did make a purchcase, I did not receive a receipt or anything with a time-stamp. The best I could come up with is a letter signed by the shop owner, claiming that he had served me at approx 9:30 that morning. The speeding ticket shows about 10 mins later however with the time it took officer to flag me down & process me etc, I'm hoping it would stll look legit. I had considered using a closer time in the letter however that would likely make mine and the shopkeeper's stories look less and less believable to the judge/JP.
Sorry for being so long-winded but wanted to be clear on what happened and hopefully get good advice on which defence I should use. As I am a newbie and have never fought a ticket (always a 1st time for everything I suppose) any advice on how to handle the big event would be appreciated (including whether I should even fight it or not). Cheers- rayin Barrie
1) Demerit points aren't listed on tickets. For 26 over you'd receive 3 points. You'd need to get it reduced to 15 or less for no points. 2) I don't believe there's any requirement for advanced notice, but can't remember for certain. That would probably be covered by the HTA regulation dealing with signs: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/r ... g-615.html 3) A lidar device will record the distance at which the reading was obtained. Request disclosure and review the officer's notes. Hopefully he'll have recorded the distance and where he obtained the reading from. That should be able to confirm if you were in the 40 km/hr zone or not. Do NOT rely on Google Streetview imagery, you won't be able to use that as evidence in Court. 4) I don't see how stopping at the store is relevant to your defence. You admit your vehicle is capable of obtaining that speed, just that you're not in the habit of driving that fast.
1) Demerit points aren't listed on tickets. For 26 over you'd receive 3 points. You'd need to get it reduced to 15 or less for no points.
2) I don't believe there's any requirement for advanced notice, but can't remember for certain. That would probably be covered by the HTA regulation dealing with signs: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/r ... g-615.html
3) A lidar device will record the distance at which the reading was obtained. Request disclosure and review the officer's notes. Hopefully he'll have recorded the distance and where he obtained the reading from. That should be able to confirm if you were in the 40 km/hr zone or not. Do NOT rely on Google Streetview imagery, you won't be able to use that as evidence in Court.
4) I don't see how stopping at the store is relevant to your defence. You admit your vehicle is capable of obtaining that speed, just that you're not in the habit of driving that fast.
Thanks Stanton, How do I request disclosure? Will this info be available to me before I go to Traffic Court? If the issuing officer did not record the Lidar distance stamp in his notes, are my chances any better of raising sufficient reasonable doubt regarding whether he acquired my speed inside the 40 zone? If I can't use Streetview imagery to prove line of sight beyond the boundaries of the 40 zone, would the City of Barrie interactive map info (which has a distance measurement tool) likely be disallowed as-well? I have to say I'm also a bit sceptical of how the officer new exactly how far the 40 kph sign was from his cruiser's location, and thus how "close" he had to allow me to get before locking in my reading. Sounds like the missing Reduced Speed Ahead sign is not a strong argument, but I'll have a look at the HTA section you sent me the link to, thanks for the tip. Ok so my car might achieve 66 kph in 150m from a near-standing start, if I absolutely burry the throttle. If the judge/JP buys my claim that I was coming from the store's parking lot en-route to receiving my ticket, and even though he/she knows its unlikely I was hard-accelerating all the way to the beginning of the 40 kph zone, how can I convince him/her of that?
Thanks Stanton,
How do I request disclosure? Will this info be available to me before I go to Traffic Court? If the issuing officer did not record the Lidar distance stamp in his notes, are my chances any better of raising sufficient reasonable doubt regarding whether he acquired my speed inside the 40 zone? If I can't use Streetview imagery to prove line of sight beyond the boundaries of the 40 zone, would the City of Barrie interactive map info (which has a distance measurement tool) likely be disallowed as-well? I have to say I'm also a bit sceptical of how the officer new exactly how far the 40 kph sign was from his cruiser's location, and thus how "close" he had to allow me to get before locking in my reading.
Sounds like the missing Reduced Speed Ahead sign is not a strong argument, but I'll have a look at the HTA section you sent me the link to, thanks for the tip.
Ok so my car might achieve 66 kph in 150m from a near-standing start, if I absolutely burry the throttle. If the judge/JP buys my claim that I was coming from the store's parking lot en-route to receiving my ticket, and even though he/she knows its unlikely I was hard-accelerating all the way to the beginning of the 40 kph zone, how can I convince him/her of that?
This argument comes up all the time, "I drive "X" car and therefore can can't be speeding", or "My car can't accelerate that fast be cause it is a (fill in the blank)". You say you were at a "Near" standing start which means you were already moving, albeit slow. If we now assume you were completely stopped (adjusting in your favour) then to accelerate to 66 km/h within 150m (assuming constant acceleration) would have taken you about 16.5 seconds..... doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.... in fact it seems rather slow even with the description of your car. This is also assuming that the officer got his reading on your car the exact moment you got to the 40 km/h zone (unlikely), and your guess of 150m is relatively accurate. It is more likely that you were caught after entering the zone and had even more time and distance to accelerate. If you really did take that long to get to the speed of 66 km/h, I certainly hope you don't take your car on any 400 series highways, I would probably consider you a hazard trying to merge with traffic since you likely wouldn't even make it to highway speed before the end of the merge lane by your estimation. Also I commend you on having a 15-20 second eye lead while driving (having seen the officer step out onto the road 15-20 seconds before you arrived at him). That isn't normal for most people on the road. I would be surprised if they were between 3 and 5 seconds the way most drive. As for disclosure, you need to contact the prosecutors office at the court house listed on the back of your ticket. Make sure you do it right away it can take some time to receive if the request has to be sent to the Officer. Not sure about Barrie but here in Toronto the time set by the court is a 6 - 8 week turn around. There is a good chance it will be ready before this but they set that length due to Officer schedule and holidays.
rayinbarrie wrote:
Thanks Stanton,
Ok so my car might achieve 66 kph in 150m from a near-standing start, if I absolutely burry the throttle. If the judge/JP buys my claim that I was coming from the store's parking lot en-route to receiving my ticket, and even though he/she knows its unlikely I was hard-accelerating all the way to the beginning of the 40 kph zone, how can I convince him/her of that?
This argument comes up all the time, "I drive "X" car and therefore can can't be speeding", or "My car can't accelerate that fast be cause it is a (fill in the blank)".
You say you were at a "Near" standing start which means you were already moving, albeit slow. If we now assume you were completely stopped (adjusting in your favour) then to accelerate to 66 km/h within 150m (assuming constant acceleration) would have taken you about 16.5 seconds..... doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.... in fact it seems rather slow even with the description of your car. This is also assuming that the officer got his reading on your car the exact moment you got to the 40 km/h zone (unlikely), and your guess of 150m is relatively accurate. It is more likely that you were caught after entering the zone and had even more time and distance to accelerate. If you really did take that long to get to the speed of 66 km/h, I certainly hope you don't take your car on any 400 series highways, I would probably consider you a hazard trying to merge with traffic since you likely wouldn't even make it to highway speed before the end of the merge lane by your estimation.
Also I commend you on having a 15-20 second eye lead while driving (having seen the officer step out onto the road 15-20 seconds before you arrived at him). That isn't normal for most people on the road. I would be surprised if they were between 3 and 5 seconds the way most drive.
As for disclosure, you need to contact the prosecutors office at the court house listed on the back of your ticket. Make sure you do it right away it can take some time to receive if the request has to be sent to the Officer. Not sure about Barrie but here in Toronto the time set by the court is a 6 - 8 week turn around. There is a good chance it will be ready before this but they set that length due to Officer schedule and holidays.
This argument comes up all the time, "I drive "X" car and therefore can can't be speeding", or "My car can't accelerate that fast be cause it is a (fill in the blank)". You say you were at a "Near" standing start which means you were already moving, albeit slow. If we now assume you were completely stopped (adjusting in your favour) then to accelerate to 66 km/h within 150m (assuming constant acceleration) would have taken you about 16.5 seconds..... doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.... in fact it seems rather slow even with the description of your car. This is also assuming that the officer got his reading on your car the exact moment you got to the 40 km/h zone (unlikely), and your guess of 150m is relatively accurate. It is more likely that you were caught after entering the zone and had even more time and distance to accelerate. If you really did take that long to get to the speed of 66 km/h, I certainly hope you don't take your car on any 400 series highways, I would probably consider you a hazard trying to merge with traffic since you likely wouldn't even make it to highway speed before the end of the merge lane by your estimation. Also I commend you on having a 15-20 second eye lead while driving (having seen the officer step out onto the road 15-20 seconds before you arrived at him). That isn't normal for most people on the road. I would be surprised if they were between 3 and 5 seconds the way most drive. As for disclosure, you need to contact the prosecutors office at the court house listed on the back of your ticket. Make sure you do it right away it can take some time to receive if the request has to be sent to the Officer. Not sure about Barrie but here in Toronto the time set by the court is a 6 - 8 week turn around. There is a good chance it will be ready before this but they set that length due to Officer schedule and holidays. Thanks "Passing Through" Just wanted to say 1st that I'm very grateful for the info I receive in this forum. I just realized that I haven't said much in-way of appreciation until now and wanted to avoid coming off like some conceited a$$ just out to save his own skin. OK so the "my car won't go that fast" argument likely won't get me anywhere- check. By the way Phil Edmunston once described my car model's factory-spec acceleration as being "glacial", so while its perhaps not that bad as you claim, its evidently not that great either. Funny you should mention 400 series hwy on-ramps, since that's by-far where I get flipped the bird most-often. Re the absence of a Reduced Speed Zone Ahead sign on the approach to the 40 kph zone I was ticketed in, I admit to not having had much luck finding a smoking gun in the HTA. Why then, as I have lamented before, would a municipality spend taxpayer's money equipping all their other Reduced Speed Zones with such signs, if they were not obligated to? Just because they're being nice guys? Seems to be something I'm not getting, here. Based on my ever-decreasing chances of a successful acquital if going to trial, I am now considering choosing Option 2 on my ticket ("Pleading Guilty WIth Explanation") and taking my chances with obtaining a plea-bargain down to 1-15 over, no points, and double the money due to the CSZ (and frankly who CARES about the money if I avoid the points!). Apparently the issuing officer will not attend such a hearing (is it open-court setting or something more discreet?) so I like my chances better that way. I take it that a Court appearance still has to occur, and that the plea-bargain has to be vetted by the officiant before its a done deal. If, in the mean time, I find huge holes in the officer's notes (via disclosure) or if he doesn't show on my Court date, do I have the option of killing my own deal and trying for an acquittal, if I think my chances are better that-way? Is it possible the judge/JP may forget a plea-bargain was ever agreed-to and reinstate my original violation? I just want to be very careful about bite-back if I get too greedy. Oh, and, thanks for the comment about my being an above-average defensive driver (15-20 sec eye-lead). I realize this is not a forum to discuss driving habits, however I can't believe most wouldn't start noticing people walking out on the road in front of their cars, even that far ahead. Unfortunately it may have even worked against me in this case, as I sensed that, once I arrived at his location, the police officer seemed frustrated/fed-up/bored of having been made to wait that long. Perhaps he thought I had begun slowing down prematurely out of guilt, and that I was delaying/puting off the innevitable. In-fact I had no idea until I was almost upon him that he was a police officer, not that it would have made any dif (I'm just not in the habit of mowing pedestrians down with my front bumper). Cheers, rayinbarrie
Passing Thru wrote:
rayinbarrie wrote:
Thanks Stanton,
Ok so my car might achieve 66 kph in 150m from a near-standing start, if I absolutely burry the throttle. If the judge/JP buys my claim that I was coming from the store's parking lot en-route to receiving my ticket, and even though he/she knows its unlikely I was hard-accelerating all the way to the beginning of the 40 kph zone, how can I convince him/her of that?
This argument comes up all the time, "I drive "X" car and therefore can can't be speeding", or "My car can't accelerate that fast be cause it is a (fill in the blank)".
You say you were at a "Near" standing start which means you were already moving, albeit slow. If we now assume you were completely stopped (adjusting in your favour) then to accelerate to 66 km/h within 150m (assuming constant acceleration) would have taken you about 16.5 seconds..... doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.... in fact it seems rather slow even with the description of your car. This is also assuming that the officer got his reading on your car the exact moment you got to the 40 km/h zone (unlikely), and your guess of 150m is relatively accurate. It is more likely that you were caught after entering the zone and had even more time and distance to accelerate. If you really did take that long to get to the speed of 66 km/h, I certainly hope you don't take your car on any 400 series highways, I would probably consider you a hazard trying to merge with traffic since you likely wouldn't even make it to highway speed before the end of the merge lane by your estimation.
Also I commend you on having a 15-20 second eye lead while driving (having seen the officer step out onto the road 15-20 seconds before you arrived at him). That isn't normal for most people on the road. I would be surprised if they were between 3 and 5 seconds the way most drive.
As for disclosure, you need to contact the prosecutors office at the court house listed on the back of your ticket. Make sure you do it right away it can take some time to receive if the request has to be sent to the Officer. Not sure about Barrie but here in Toronto the time set by the court is a 6 - 8 week turn around. There is a good chance it will be ready before this but they set that length due to Officer schedule and holidays.
Thanks "Passing Through"
Just wanted to say 1st that I'm very grateful for the info I receive in this forum. I just realized that I haven't said much in-way of appreciation until now and wanted to avoid coming off like some conceited a$$ just out to save his own skin.
OK so the "my car won't go that fast" argument likely won't get me anywhere- check. By the way Phil Edmunston once described my car model's factory-spec acceleration as being "glacial", so while its perhaps not that bad as you claim, its evidently not that great either. Funny you should mention 400 series hwy on-ramps, since that's by-far where I get flipped the bird most-often.
Re the absence of a Reduced Speed Zone Ahead sign on the approach to the 40 kph zone I was ticketed in, I admit to not having had much luck finding a smoking gun in the HTA. Why then, as I have lamented before, would a municipality spend taxpayer's money equipping all their other Reduced Speed Zones with such signs, if they were not obligated to? Just because they're being nice guys? Seems to be something I'm not getting, here.
Based on my ever-decreasing chances of a successful acquital if going to trial, I am now considering choosing Option 2 on my ticket ("Pleading Guilty WIth Explanation") and taking my chances with obtaining a plea-bargain down to 1-15 over, no points, and double the money due to the CSZ (and frankly who CARES about the money if I avoid the points!). Apparently the issuing officer will not attend such a hearing (is it open-court setting or something more discreet?) so I like my chances better that way. I take it that a Court appearance still has to occur, and that the plea-bargain has to be vetted by the officiant before its a done deal. If, in the mean time, I find huge holes in the officer's notes (via disclosure) or if he doesn't show on my Court date, do I have the option of killing my own deal and trying for an acquittal, if I think my chances are better that-way? Is it possible the judge/JP may forget a plea-bargain was ever agreed-to and reinstate my original violation? I just want to be very careful about bite-back if I get too greedy.
Oh, and, thanks for the comment about my being an above-average defensive driver (15-20 sec eye-lead). I realize this is not a forum to discuss driving habits, however I can't believe most wouldn't start noticing people walking out on the road in front of their cars, even that far ahead. Unfortunately it may have even worked against me in this case, as I sensed that, once I arrived at his location, the police officer seemed frustrated/fed-up/bored of having been made to wait that long. Perhaps he thought I had begun slowing down prematurely out of guilt, and that I was delaying/puting off the innevitable. In-fact I had no idea until I was almost upon him that he was a police officer, not that it would have made any dif (I'm just not in the habit of mowing pedestrians down with my front bumper).
Actually, this IS a forum where driving habits can be discussed (see the "General" section). Anyway... I'd still recommend choosing option 3. If you choose "guilty with an explanation," you are pleading guilty to the original speed and charge. If you choose option 3, this is where you can try to plea bargain with the Prosecutor for a lower speed/fine.
rayinbarrie wrote:
I realize this is not a forum to discuss driving habits, however I can't believe most wouldn't start noticing people walking out on the road in front of their cars, even that far ahead.
Actually, this IS a forum where driving habits can be discussed (see the "General" section).
Anyway... I'd still recommend choosing option 3. If you choose "guilty with an explanation," you are pleading guilty to the original speed and charge. If you choose option 3, this is where you can try to plea bargain with the Prosecutor for a lower speed/fine.
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
You might find the sample disclosure form mentioned here http://www.ticketcombat.com/sitesearch.php listed under sample forms. In fact the entire site is excellent and worthwhile going through in its entirety. If you decide to do that, make sure you follow the forward arrows at the bottom of each page not just the tabs on top. Option 3 is the way to go. At worst you can negotiate a deal with the prosecution when you go to trial (they always offered a deal during the times I wen to observe court which I strongly suggest you do as well as it is a great way to prepare for your own case) and at best the officer won't show and your charge will be dismissed. Re demerit points. Your insurance likely won't care about demerit points but they will count each traffic violation. Demerit points stay on your record for 2 years http://www.ontario.ca/driving-and-roads ... rit-points but traffic ticket with your insurance longer, I believe 3 and police can access it for years. Many people are concerned about demerits but unless you're notorious for traffic violations they're not as critical as people think.
You might find the sample disclosure form mentioned here http://www.ticketcombat.com/sitesearch.php listed under sample forms. In fact the entire site is excellent and worthwhile going through in its entirety. If you decide to do that, make sure you follow the forward arrows at the bottom of each page not just the tabs on top.
Option 3 is the way to go. At worst you can negotiate a deal with the prosecution when you go to trial (they always offered a deal during the times I wen to observe court which I strongly suggest you do as well as it is a great way to prepare for your own case) and at best the officer won't show and your charge will be dismissed.
Re demerit points. Your insurance likely won't care about demerit points but they will count each traffic violation. Demerit points stay on your record for 2 years http://www.ontario.ca/driving-and-roads ... rit-points but traffic ticket with your insurance longer, I believe 3 and police can access it for years. Many people are concerned about demerits but unless you're notorious for traffic violations they're not as critical as people think.
Thanks R.I. and Pepsi Being 7 days away from my 15-days-to-respond deadline, do you recommend I now forget mailing in and just go in-person to the Prov Off Court offices listed on my ticket? Will I be able to fill out any forms ahead of time (i.e. Disclosure form Pepsi pointed me to) to avoid having to re-queue when I'm there etc or do I just have to spend the time it takes filling everything in-situ? Thanks Pepsi for the tip on attending Traffic Court as a bystander, to get insight. Most people wouldn't bother and, even if they wanted to, many more wouldn't have the luxury of time (fortunately I can likely swing it). Will I need to provide/show anything to be allowed in (i.e. a copy of my ticket)? Cheers, rayinbarrie
Thanks R.I. and Pepsi
Being 7 days away from my 15-days-to-respond deadline, do you recommend I now forget mailing in and just go in-person to the Prov Off Court offices listed on my ticket? Will I be able to fill out any forms ahead of time (i.e. Disclosure form Pepsi pointed me to) to avoid having to re-queue when I'm there etc or do I just have to spend the time it takes filling everything in-situ?
Thanks Pepsi for the tip on attending Traffic Court as a bystander, to get insight. Most people wouldn't bother and, even if they wanted to, many more wouldn't have the luxury of time (fortunately I can likely swing it). Will I need to provide/show anything to be allowed in (i.e. a copy of my ticket)?
Dear helpful posters, I realize now that I can only request disclosure after initially choosing Option 3 and subsequently receiving a court appearance date. Questions: 1. Does a violation that is eventually withdrawn by the prosecution (i.e. issuing officer doesn't show etc) stay on the offender's driving record, for any definite period of time (that-is-to-say, the record which a then-prosecutor would see if such offender were to end up back in traffic court weeks/months/years later)? 2. On a roadside-reduced speeding ticket, will my record still show (i.e. will a prosecutor see) what the initial speed violation was? 2. I had a prior minor in 2005 which I settled by choosing then-available "Option 4", where an offender, after paying a higher fine than that carried by the infraction (but less than a paralegal) and being made to sit through "traffic school", seemingly had his or her ticket thrown out. I am learning via this forum that tickets cannot necessarilly diappear so easilly. Does anyone out there know how that option actually worked, and if in-fact the infraction probably remains on my record?
Dear helpful posters,
I realize now that I can only request disclosure after initially choosing Option 3 and subsequently receiving a court appearance date.
Questions:
1. Does a violation that is eventually withdrawn by the prosecution (i.e. issuing officer doesn't show etc) stay on the offender's driving record, for any definite period of time (that-is-to-say, the record which a then-prosecutor would see if such offender were to end up back in traffic court weeks/months/years later)?
2. On a roadside-reduced speeding ticket, will my record still show (i.e. will a prosecutor see) what the initial speed violation was?
2. I had a prior minor in 2005 which I settled by choosing then-available "Option 4", where an offender, after paying a higher fine than that carried by the infraction (but less than a paralegal) and being made to sit through "traffic school", seemingly had his or her ticket thrown out. I am learning via this forum that tickets cannot necessarilly diappear so easilly. Does anyone out there know how that option actually worked, and if in-fact the infraction probably remains on my record?
No. An offence that you are not convicted (or plead guilty to) of does not go on your driving record or driver abstract. The officer's notes will, and the Prosecutor will have reviewed them and talked to the officer before the court date. Sometimes, the officer can put "R" in the code box on the ticket, but they don't have to. Try calling MTO. Your driver abstract will only show the last 3 years of driving history, but they've got access to the whole database.
rayinbarrie wrote:
1. Does a violation that is eventually withdrawn by the prosecution (i.e. issuing officer doesn't show etc) stay on the offender's driving record, for any definite period of time (that-is-to-say, the record which a then-prosecutor would see if such offender were to end up back in traffic court weeks/months/years later)?
No. An offence that you are not convicted (or plead guilty to) of does not go on your driving record or driver abstract.
rayinbarrie wrote:
2. On a roadside-reduced speeding ticket, will my record still show (i.e. will a prosecutor see) what the initial speed violation was?
The officer's notes will, and the Prosecutor will have reviewed them and talked to the officer before the court date. Sometimes, the officer can put "R" in the code box on the ticket, but they don't have to.
rayinbarrie wrote:
3. I had a prior minor in 2005 which I settled by choosing then-available "Option 4", where an offender, after paying a higher fine than that carried by the infraction (but less than a paralegal) and being made to sit through "traffic school", seemingly had his or her ticket thrown out. I am learning via this forum that tickets cannot necessarilly diappear so easilly. Does anyone out there know how that option actually worked, and if in-fact the infraction probably remains on my record?
Try calling MTO. Your driver abstract will only show the last 3 years of driving history, but they've got access to the whole database.
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
Thanks R.I. Hopefully you &/or your collegues can help solve another mystery of mine as it involves a prior minor traffic offense I was charged with in 2010, and which will, because of its "recentness", likely get cited by the prosecutor who will be rebutting my "previously good driving record" defence (hoping to prove to JP of low risk to re-offend). 2 Days before Christmas 2010 (talk about timing) I was rear-vehicle in a low-speed rear-ender on the QEW. Based on such little damage to the other driver's vehicle, I initially offered to pay out of pocket however, when he began complaining of a stiff neck (he had initially said he was unhurt) I began figuring whatever extra insurance costs I might avoid would not be worth the risk of having to dish out additional and substantial compensation for a suspicious soft-tissue injury. After reporting to the appropriate Collision Reporting Centre, I was charged/ticketed for following too close, and told that this was as good as it would likely get since the typical up-front charge is the much-more serious Careless Driving. Being a newbie and unaware of my rights and other options, I chose to join the 97% of charged drivers who just plead guilty and pay. Several months later I received my fine payment back from the municipality I had paid it to, with no explanation. My Insurance company later reported knowing of the incident, for which I was found at-fault. This would indicate a conviction which I gather, having been less than 3 years ago, would show up on an MTO abstract. However if indeed there was, why did I get my money back? Thanks for any help.
Thanks R.I.
Hopefully you &/or your collegues can help solve another mystery of mine as it involves a prior minor traffic offense I was charged with in 2010, and which will, because of its "recentness", likely get cited by the prosecutor who will be rebutting my "previously good driving record" defence (hoping to prove to JP of low risk to re-offend).
2 Days before Christmas 2010 (talk about timing) I was rear-vehicle in a low-speed rear-ender on the QEW. Based on such little damage to the other driver's vehicle, I initially offered to pay out of pocket however, when he began complaining of a stiff neck (he had initially said he was unhurt) I began figuring whatever extra insurance costs I might avoid would not be worth the risk of having to dish out additional and substantial compensation for a suspicious soft-tissue injury.
After reporting to the appropriate Collision Reporting Centre, I was charged/ticketed for following too close, and told that this was as good as it would likely get since the typical up-front charge is the much-more serious Careless Driving. Being a newbie and unaware of my rights and other options, I chose to join the 97% of charged drivers who just plead guilty and pay. Several months later I received my fine payment back from the municipality I had paid it to, with no explanation. My Insurance company later reported knowing of the incident, for which I was found at-fault. This would indicate a conviction which I gather, having been less than 3 years ago, would show up on an MTO abstract. However if indeed there was, why did I get my money back? Thanks for any help.
That is odd, usually if you have been convicted they would keep your money or if there was something wrong with your payment they would send you a notice demanding that you correct the problem. It might be worth ordering a copy of your drivers abstract from MTO just to see what is on it, there is a service fee but then you would know for sure what was on there.
rayinbarrie wrote:
Thanks R.I.
Hopefully you &/or your collegues can help solve another mystery of mine as it involves a prior minor traffic offense I was charged with in 2010, and which will, because of its "recentness", likely get cited by the prosecutor who will be rebutting my "previously good driving record" defence (hoping to prove to JP of low risk to re-offend).
2 Days before Christmas 2010 (talk about timing) I was rear-vehicle in a low-speed rear-ender on the QEW. Based on such little damage to the other driver's vehicle, I initially offered to pay out of pocket however, when he began complaining of a stiff neck (he had initially said he was unhurt) I began figuring whatever extra insurance costs I might avoid would not be worth the risk of having to dish out additional and substantial compensation for a suspicious soft-tissue injury.
After reporting to the appropriate Collision Reporting Centre, I was charged/ticketed for following too close, and told that this was as good as it would likely get since the typical up-front charge is the much-more serious Careless Driving. Being a newbie and unaware of my rights and other options, I chose to join the 97% of charged drivers who just plead guilty and pay. Several months later I received my fine payment back from the municipality I had paid it to, with no explanation. My Insurance company later reported knowing of the incident, for which I was found at-fault. This would indicate a conviction which I gather, having been less than 3 years ago, would show up on an MTO abstract. However if indeed there was, why did I get my money back? Thanks for any help.
That is odd, usually if you have been convicted they would keep your money or if there was something wrong with your payment they would send you a notice demanding that you correct the problem. It might be worth ordering a copy of your drivers abstract from MTO just to see what is on it, there is a service fee but then you would know for sure what was on there.
Might have been an error on the ticket or maybe it wasn't submitted. The insurance company could have simply found you at fault based on the accident report (which you would be in a rear ender). As stated above though, might be good to check and see what happened just to be sure.
Might have been an error on the ticket or maybe it wasn't submitted. The insurance company could have simply found you at fault based on the accident report (which you would be in a rear ender). As stated above though, might be good to check and see what happened just to be sure.
Rayinbarrie, In Peel court anyone can observe proceedings and I believe these rules apply for the province. If in doubt, just call the number on the ticket and ask. You are correct that time is the main reason people don't do this but I found it worth the time even if it means wasting a vacation day. A couple of things to help keep time spent there to a minimum, again based on my experience in Peel court: 1. There are 2 sessions each day, 9 (or maybe 9:30am) and 1:30pm. Traffic cases are usually handled in the afternoon. 2. At the beginning of the session all the victims, I mean, offenders, lineup to see the prosecutor. That's when they are offered a deal. 3. Once everyone is processed the prosecution first handles the cases where the deal with guilty plea was accepted. This goes fairly fast. 4. Last to be called are the ones who refused the deal and opted for a trial. I went to court 5 times or so to observe and only once was there a case that was actually tried. Most people accept the deal. Based on the above I would suggest you call the court to find out what time most traffic cases are tried and confirm that you can observe. Also make sure court will be working on the day you plan on going, I went one day to observe just to find out the entire court staff was on some sort of a retreat for the whole week. Re reduced charge on the ticket, if you decide to go to trial ( I don't mean choosing option 3 on the ticket, even if you do that you can still chose to plead guilty later, I'm talking about stating you want a trial when your case comes to court) your reduced charge might be upped to the original. I wouldn't worry about it at this point however, the key is to chose option 3, bring the ticket to the court office and have them stamp it as filed. When you get the court date ask for disclosure and based on what you see decide whether or not you're willing to accept a deal when in court. When asking for disclosure make sure you ask at the minimum what ticketcombat suggests. Courts have their own forms that give you practically nothing so don't use those. Good luck!
rayinbarrie wrote:
Thanks R.I. and Pepsi
Being 7 days away from my 15-days-to-respond deadline, do you recommend I now forget mailing in and just go in-person to the Prov Off Court offices listed on my ticket? Will I be able to fill out any forms ahead of time (i.e. Disclosure form Pepsi pointed me to) to avoid having to re-queue when I'm there etc or do I just have to spend the time it takes filling everything in-situ?
Thanks Pepsi for the tip on attending Traffic Court as a bystander, to get insight. Most people wouldn't bother and, even if they wanted to, many more wouldn't have the luxury of time (fortunately I can likely swing it). Will I need to provide/show anything to be allowed in (i.e. a copy of my ticket)?
Cheers, rayinbarrie
Rayinbarrie,
In Peel court anyone can observe proceedings and I believe these rules apply for the province. If in doubt, just call the number on the ticket and ask. You are correct that time is the main reason people don't do this but I found it worth the time even if it means wasting a vacation day. A couple of things to help keep time spent there to a minimum, again based on my experience in Peel court:
1. There are 2 sessions each day, 9 (or maybe 9:30am) and 1:30pm. Traffic cases are usually handled in the afternoon.
2. At the beginning of the session all the victims, I mean, offenders, lineup to see the prosecutor. That's when they are offered a deal.
3. Once everyone is processed the prosecution first handles the cases where the deal with guilty plea was accepted. This goes fairly fast.
4. Last to be called are the ones who refused the deal and opted for a trial. I went to court 5 times or so to observe and only once was there a case that was actually tried. Most people accept the deal.
Based on the above I would suggest you call the court to find out what time most traffic cases are tried and confirm that you can observe. Also make sure court will be working on the day you plan on going, I went one day to observe just to find out the entire court staff was on some sort of a retreat for the whole week.
Re reduced charge on the ticket, if you decide to go to trial ( I don't mean choosing option 3 on the ticket, even if you do that you can still chose to plead guilty later, I'm talking about stating you want a trial when your case comes to court) your reduced charge might be upped to the original. I wouldn't worry about it at this point however, the key is to chose option 3, bring the ticket to the court office and have them stamp it as filed. When you get the court date ask for disclosure and based on what you see decide whether or not you're willing to accept a deal when in court. When asking for disclosure make sure you ask at the minimum what ticketcombat suggests. Courts have their own forms that give you practically nothing so don't use those.
Thanks Pepsi and previous helpful Posters, BTW and though I haven't ordered an MTO Abstract yet, it seems my Insurance probably counted my 2010 minor prior (which seemingly got thrown out as I got my entire paid fine refunded) simply because I made a claim through them for the repairs to my vehicle. Besides, as daggx advised, they (Insurance) may have have counted the matter by-default (rear car in rear-ender generally = guilty) despite the case seemingly being thrown out. Based on the unexpected ticket throw-out and the subsequent possible avoidance of being counted by my Insurance, I will, in the future, strongly consider paying out of pocket for any repair that I can somehow manage. Thanks Pepsi for the insight into the Traffic Court process. A friend who went to TC for a similar ticket to mine about 6 months ago, pretty much echoed your observations (and to some degree your advice, though she was far more pro-plea-bargain after having watched a few trials from the previous session that-day which, presumably, all went in-favor of the Crown). Indeed I will be requesting disclosure as its likely any evidence I can hope to hang an aquittal on, will be in the officer's notes. I admit that the issuing officer & I also had a roadside "chat" (the appropriateness of the zone in its current location and, perhaps more so, a police enforcement net which has been cast, perhaps, just a little too widely, have been bones of contention as of-late in local media). So I will also be interested in knowing whether the officer labelled me as a trouble-maker, as that will surely also come back to bite me in Court, no-doubt at the most inoportune time. Question: Will the fact my infraction occured in a CSZ somehow influence the "degree" of the lesser-charge that the Crown likely offers me pre-trial? I did not see on this site where the CSZ infraction would bring Demerits but, if it does, I'm concerned that the Crown might subsequently be compelled to offer me less of a deal. Thanks again for the great advice.
Thanks Pepsi and previous helpful Posters,
BTW and though I haven't ordered an MTO Abstract yet, it seems my Insurance probably counted my 2010 minor prior (which seemingly got thrown out as I got my entire paid fine refunded) simply because I made a claim through them for the repairs to my vehicle. Besides, as daggx advised, they (Insurance) may have have counted the matter by-default (rear car in rear-ender generally = guilty) despite the case seemingly being thrown out. Based on the unexpected ticket throw-out and the subsequent possible avoidance of being counted by my Insurance, I will, in the future, strongly consider paying out of pocket for any repair that I can somehow manage.
Thanks Pepsi for the insight into the Traffic Court process. A friend who went to TC for a similar ticket to mine about 6 months ago, pretty much echoed your observations (and to some degree your advice, though she was far more pro-plea-bargain after having watched a few trials from the previous session that-day which, presumably, all went in-favor of the Crown).
Indeed I will be requesting disclosure as its likely any evidence I can hope to hang an aquittal on, will be in the officer's notes. I admit that the issuing officer & I also had a roadside "chat" (the appropriateness of the zone in its current location and, perhaps more so, a police enforcement net which has been cast, perhaps, just a little too widely, have been bones of contention as of-late in local media). So I will also be interested in knowing whether the officer labelled me as a trouble-maker, as that will surely also come back to bite me in Court, no-doubt at the most inoportune time.
Question: Will the fact my infraction occured in a CSZ somehow influence the "degree" of the lesser-charge that the Crown likely offers me pre-trial? I did not see on this site where the CSZ infraction would bring Demerits but, if it does, I'm concerned that the Crown might subsequently be compelled to offer me less of a deal. Thanks again for the great advice.
The only trial I've seen was a disaster for the defendant but she had completely no clue what she was doing and instead of cross examining the officer she kept on repeating she wasn't going 'that fast'. It was a short trial. I was prepared but the officer didn't show so I didn't have a chance to test my defence strategy. Hopefully if you decide to go to trial you will be prepared. Ticketcombat has a mention of community safety zone here http://www.ticketcombat.com/step3/findact.php and mentions municipal by-laws. Is it possible the rsz is mentioned there? Also, maybe you can find something here http://canlii.ca/en/on/laws/stat/rso-19 ... -c-h8.html . Just scroll down to Community safety zones.
The only trial I've seen was a disaster for the defendant but she had completely no clue what she was doing and instead of cross examining the officer she kept on repeating she wasn't going 'that fast'. It was a short trial. I was prepared but the officer didn't show so I didn't have a chance to test my defence strategy. Hopefully if you decide to go to trial you will be prepared. Ticketcombat has a mention of community safety zone here http://www.ticketcombat.com/step3/findact.php and mentions municipal by-laws. Is it possible the rsz is mentioned there? Also, maybe you can find something here http://canlii.ca/en/on/laws/stat/rso-19 ... -c-h8.html . Just scroll down to Community safety zones.
Thanks Pepsi, Seems your colleague at TicketCombat was right about nothing to lose and everything to gain by requesting a trial, regardless of one's final intentions. I checked option 3 but, instead of receiving a trial date, got a form letter from the court stating that the ticket was being dismissed because the police did not file in-time! The last sentence however was somewhat of a kill-joy: "The officer has the option to relay this charge". What exactly does this mean and can it affect me? Thanks again to you & other helpful posters for the insight & guidance. Cheers rayinbarrie
Thanks Pepsi,
Seems your colleague at TicketCombat was right about nothing to lose and everything to gain by requesting a trial, regardless of one's final intentions. I checked option 3 but, instead of receiving a trial date, got a form letter from the court stating that the ticket was being dismissed because the police did not file in-time!
The last sentence however was somewhat of a kill-joy: "The officer has the option to relay this charge". What exactly does this mean and can it affect me? Thanks again to you & other helpful posters for the insight & guidance.
rayinbarrie, I don't know what the relay note means but my guess would be that the officer might go back to the court/judge and request that the ticket not be dismissed. Ticketcombat says ' A police officer has seven days to file all the traffic tickets he wrote.' Maybe the officer was sick or had some other issue that prevented him from filing on time. Imho. unless the officer really has it in for you he'll just let it go. So, cautiously optimistic congrats to you. Maybe some other members will be able to clarify it for you.
rayinbarrie, I don't know what the relay note means but my guess would be that the officer might go back to the court/judge and request that the ticket not be dismissed. Ticketcombat says ' A police officer has seven days to file all the traffic tickets he wrote.' Maybe the officer was sick or had some other issue that prevented him from filing on time. Imho. unless the officer really has it in for you he'll just let it go. So, cautiously optimistic congrats to you. Maybe some other members will be able to clarify it for you.
While the cop has to submit a regular ticket issued under part 1 of the Provincial Offences Act within 7 days, he has up to 6 months from the date of the offence to serve you with a summons issued under part 3 of the Provincial Offences Act. So theoretically you still could be served with a summons, however in practice that seems like a lot of effort for a minor speeding ticket so I think he probably won't bother.
While the cop has to submit a regular ticket issued under part 1 of the Provincial Offences Act within 7 days, he has up to 6 months from the date of the offence to serve you with a summons issued under part 3 of the Provincial Offences Act. So theoretically you still could be served with a summons, however in practice that seems like a lot of effort for a minor speeding ticket so I think he probably won't bother.
daggx, isn't part 3 of the POA only for serious violations? raybarrie's offence seems to fall into category 1. http://fightyourtickets.ca/law/ontario- ... ences-act/
The wording on that link is a little confusing. You can actually proceed by way of Part III summons for any offence. Common reasons why that I can think of: 1) Too much time has passed to serve regular ticket. 2) A mix of minor and more serious offences (i.e. 15 over and no insurance). In such a case all offences should be on Part IIIs so theyre dealt with together. 3) A more serious punishment is being sought then the typical set fine.
The wording on that link is a little confusing. You can actually proceed by way of Part III summons for any offence. Common reasons why that I can think of:
1) Too much time has passed to serve regular ticket.
2) A mix of minor and more serious offences (i.e. 15 over and no insurance). In such a case all offences should be on Part IIIs so theyre dealt with together.
3) A more serious punishment is being sought then the typical set fine.
So, part 3 would be issued immediately for serious offences but can be issued later for a ticket that was originally issued under part 1 or 2? in other words, i could be summoned to court for speeding 5km if the officer failed to file the ticket within 7 days?
So, part 3 would be issued immediately for serious offences but can be issued later for a ticket that was originally issued under part 1 or 2? in other words, i could be summoned to court for speeding 5km if the officer failed to file the ticket within 7 days?
The simple answer is yes. But not likely to happen in that scenario. Even a Part I issued for the offence would probably incur the wrath of most court offices, prosectors and Justices.
The simple answer is yes. But not likely to happen in that scenario. Even a Part I issued for the offence would probably incur the wrath of most court offices, prosectors and Justices.
Technically I believe a Part 3 summons could be issued for any offence under the Provincial Offences Act, even minor stuff. However Part 1 tickets are preferred for most minor offences because if officers issued Part 3 summonses for everything the courts would not be able to handle the backlog.
Technically I believe a Part 3 summons could be issued for any offence under the Provincial Offences Act, even minor stuff. However Part 1 tickets are preferred for most minor offences because if officers issued Part 3 summonses for everything the courts would not be able to handle the backlog.
I got ticket for failing to stop at stop sign in Toronto. i heard that the police officer must see the stop line, if there is one, from where he was sitting. That is exactly my case, Is it a strong case? If so do i need a picture to show that there is a stop line and a picture to show that he could not see the stop line from where he was sitting?
I got a ticket, Disobey stop sign, sec 136.1.a on dec 6th
I made a left in an intersection and was pulled over by a police officer in an unmarked car who had been sitting down the road. A classic fishing hole situation. I was genuinely surprised when he stopped me and told me I went through a stop sign without even slowing down. I know to shut up and be polite and take the ticket. I…
Yesterday morning, I rear-ended someone. I was going the speed limit. The sun was directly in front of me and it blinded my windshield and my eyes. At the same time, the person in front of me stopped/slowed down (also due to the sun). I started to slow down but didn't stop and I hit them since I couldn't see anything. I was not driving too close initially. I…
I was driving in the county at night and hit a limousine stretched out side ways across the road. The limo had its lights on and had side lighting as well. The police officer charged me with careless driving because it was "fully lit up".
It took me to the next day to figure out what had happened - what I remember made no sense. What I had run across was a "false visual reference" illusion.
I was on hwy 37 trying to make my girlfriends ganadmas mass and I live an hour away and I had an hour to get there so I was going fast but not 50 over untill some idiot got on my tail soo close that I was to concentrated on him that I kept going faster untill I got pulled over at 147 on an 80 km hwy.
I alreaddy lost 3 points and this time was just the…
Hello, got stopped today for rolling a stop sign. Ticket says failure to stop, but quotes hta 1361b.
Doesn't 1361b mean failure to yield?
Is this a fatal error? Or could it be amended at trial. How can I prepare a defence if I don't know if I'm defending the failure to stop or the failure to yield?
After he was providing me with a ticket for failure to obey to the stop sign (I am pretty sure I stopped but less than 3 seconds recommended by my driver ed. instructor), I know everybody say that..as an excuse.
Then he stopped me again to return the documents.
Any advice and feed back would be really appreciated.
Can you get evidence for whether someone had an advanced green at an intersection? My dad was making a right turn on a red (after stopping) into a plaza parking lot. He got hit by someone making a left turn from the opposite lane. The driver told the officer called to the collision that he had an advance green. My dad said he came out of nowhere which makes me…
So i was driving on Eglinton Avenue East near Rosemount Ave.
The school bus was on the the curb on the opposite side of the road while i was travelling on the middle lane of the three-laned Eglinton Avenue East (five lanes apart plus a raised median island seperating the traffic)
I could not see the school bus as my view of the bus was being obstructed by the cars in front of me and on my left hand…
Lots of good information on getting disclosure from the Crown here.
Now, I am just wondering if I will be relying upon evidence of my own at trial... do I have to voluntarily send this material to the Crown in a reasonable time before the trial, or only if they request disclosure from me?
This morning I had an exam for university. I was studying the entire night and i wanted to catch like maybe 1-2 hours of sleep before the exam so i went to sleep. I woke up like 5 hrs after and realize that I was about to miss my exam. I still could have made it so I asked my dad for his car since I was in a huge rush and he gave it to me.
I went on the highway and I was going at 135 km/h but…
the police officer was in in the opesite oncumming lane he was fallowing another car so close that i was not even able to see his cruser till he was buy he said that i was going 111 in a 80 he said he hade me on radar he only asked for me drivers licencs and never asked for my insurence so on the ticket there no insurence dose enyone think i can beat this i wana take it to cort becuse he was…
Hi I have a couple questions so I'll explain my situation and any advice would be appreciated.
Can't remember exact date so lets call it some time in 2008 I got a fine for $5000.00 for driving without in insurance. I never paid the fine and in 2012 I was pulled over and the officer asked to see my license. Although I had it on me I figured it would be under suspension for the unpaid fine from…
Alright, so I did something really stupid the other day, I was driving down a country road and wanted to hit the curves so I passed 3 cars at once, inadvertently making it up to very much past 50 over (80 limit)... Much to my chagrin there was a cop coming in the opposite direction who immediately skidded on the gravel shoulder and who I thought was 100% going to turn around and pull me over,…
Anyone know how backed this courthouse is? I submitted my ticket for trial at the end of August, and still no letter. Im scared it got lost in the mail, can i call the courthouse and find out my courtdate? Or would i have to go in personally?
I recently received a ticket for failure to use low beams - while following - Ticket was issued Sec 168 (
- it was on the 401 and no one was within 500 meters of me, I was warning a oncoming vehicle that there was an officer hiding (which is not illegal or I could not find a law against it) it was a police vehicle travelling at very high rate of speed in the opposite direction with no lights on…
I received a warning letter from MTO for a 2pts ticket.What happened is that the police officer issued a "unsafe left turn" and then changed the ticket to "failed to signal" at the scene, but she submitted both tickets!!! And I !!!ONLY!!! received the latter ticket from her(I requested trial for "failed to signal"). I recently received notice from MTO that I'm convicted for "unsafe left turn".
Hello everyone! I was given a ticket for using a hand-held communication device while driving. It was 3 am, I was at a stop light and the cop saw me with the my phone in my hand. I told him i was just checking the time on it. I received the notes a few weeks ago ill copy them down below. Any help is appreciated although i believe there's no hope for me. The cop recorded me saying what phone i…
I got pulled over about 15 or so days ago the court till this date has not received the summons what is the legal time period that the court has to follow to accept the summons from the office court says its 15 days is the legal timeframe the officer has to serve it on the court
I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
Last Friday I was pulled over by an OPP motorcycle cop who informed me I was going 134. I was on the SB 404, I did see him parked under a bridge and when I passed him he was not on his bike.
I'm hoping to get some insight for a defense in this case.
I was in lane 1 and I had a car in front of me, and a car behind me, also there was a car speeding down Lane 3 passing everyone and moved quickly into…
