Set fine a fatal error?

tanker2ts
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined:

Set fine a fatal error?

Unread post by tanker2ts on

Speeding at 16km/h over in a 40km/h zone.

Is it correct that Ontario Courts set fines for speeding in a community zone is: 1-19km/h over maximum speed limit is $5 per kilometer?
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/ocj/en/s ... dule43.pdf

Should not the fine be 16km x $5 = $80? If the fine is not $80, is that a fatal error?


User avatar
Squishy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 709
Joined:
Location: Orillia
Contact:

Unread post by Squishy on

+$5 court fees + $20 victim surcharge (I think)
         Image


User avatar
Radar Identified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined:
Location: Toronto

Moderator

Unread post by Radar Identified on

Was that the set fine amount or total payable you're referring to?

If the set fine OR total payable is wrong, it's a fatal error. So the set fine should be about $80, and total payable, as Squishy says, is about $105 if it's a community safety zone. Let us know. Did the community safety zone have certain hours that it's in effect? What set fine did you actually get?

In the mean time, check out www.ticketcombat.com for tips on how to beat a ticket with a fatal error.


User avatar
Radar Identified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined:
Location: Toronto

Moderator

Unread post by Radar Identified on

I just looked at section 8 of the Provincial Offences Act. Basically if you settle out of court/plead guilty, it "constitutes the conviction." It does say to pay the set fine... but... I recalled some legislation from the Harris government imposing the victim surcharge. I looked it up, too, and the Victims' Bill of Rights was what they used. It pointed to section 60.1 of the Provincial Offences Act as the mechanism to collect it. S. 8 of the POA also says, in so many words, a guilty plea = conviction. Then section 60 talks about "fixed costs" (court costs), and section 60.1 talks about surcharges that are imposed on those convicted (victim surcharge). It does talk about imposing the surcharge after a "proceeding," but having done a brief search of the Act, it looks like a "proceeding" could be anything from settling out of court to actually being in court. ("Commencement of proceedings by certificate of offence.") :shock: I'm no expert, but I think since they say the out-of-court settlement/guilty plea "constitutes the conviction," the additional costs/surcharge are legit, as is the total payable - if the amounts are correct. Poorly phrased and convoluted, regardless... That dog's breakfast is one of many reasons why I'm not a lawyer. Jeez.

Let us know your exact set fine and total payable. Then we can figure out how to go from there. But if one of them, or both of them, are in error, then yes, do not respond to the charge!


User avatar
Radar Identified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined:
Location: Toronto

Moderator

Unread post by Radar Identified on

:roll:

I stand by my original statement. Section 60 and 60.1 apply whether or not there is a trial. They are also the law, in the same act. It says a conviction as a result of a "proceeding," and section 8 says if you plead guilty out of a court it constitutes a conviction. That is also a proceeding. The phraseology is the same. Payment of the set fine triggers the requirement to pay the court costs and victim surcharge, with or without a trial. You can post whatever snarky, condescending reply you like, I'm not going to buy it until you have case law to back it up. Deal with it. Your reply was not qualified by "in my view" or anything like that, you talked as though your interpretation was the law of the universe. It isn't. It's a theory. It was a great example of why you were chastised in the other thread. We'll just have to agree to disagree. End of discussion.

:roll:


tanker2ts
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined:

Unread post by tanker2ts on

Folks,
I've been away and am really surprised by the quantity and length of the replies! Thanks for the support! Basically, the ticket says: SET FINE $40, TOTAL PAYABLE $55. My contention is as follows. I am assuming that the location where citation was issued is a community zone since the posted limit is $40. If this is the case, then the fine should be $5 per km over the posted limit. Offense notice indicates that vehicle was going at 56km/h or 16km over. Thus, the set fine should be $80 (16 x 5) and NOT $40 as the notice of offense indicates. Is this then a fatal error? Do I even show up to request for a trial (plus all the other recommended steps that come after) or just wait it out? I plan to show up for first appearance after 10 days of issuance just in case the offense was not handed in the the issuing officer.


Off_Camber
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 66
Joined:

Unread post by Off_Camber on

hold on a minute...lets back up the truth trolley for a minute

if he shows up to court, depending on the JP---under section 34 of the POA is this amendable? Thats my question.
or is it a case of rolling the dice...
I chose to not show up now im in appeal..


Greatest Canadian
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 68
Joined:

Unread post by Greatest Canadian on

Yes. If the set fine is incorrect it is a fatal error and you cannot be convicted.

Here's the case law.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/20 ... ca429.html

If you've given notice to appear and received a notice of trial things change though. Current the court will still not convict you if their is a fatal error on the ticket despite you're failure to appear at trial after you've received notice of trial.

BUT, if I were the justice, I would proceed under s. 54 (and not under s. 9.1(2). I would convict you if you failed to appear and were found guilty on merit without your presence in court. I would then impose the statutory fine, court cost fine, victim surcharge fine. The court cost fine under s. 54 is much higher than the court cost fine under s. 9.1.
A nullity is treated as nothing, as if it did not exist or never happened. The defect prevents it from having such effect

Everything fraudulent is null and void


Off_Camber
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 66
Joined:

Unread post by Off_Camber on

London V Young.
that case is the defendants not responding and the duty of the Justice to quash the certificate

but someone who appears, and raises the issue of an incorrect fine-the JP then has the power to Amend the ticket as that case deals with defendants whom didnt respond to the charge --or by not appearing.

my question is-of you show up and raise the issue of an incorrect fine IS it an automatic toss out or is it ammendable?
some JPs will toss out the simplest mistakes, others will allow an amendment...theres those who know--and those whom dont---so ive learned


OTTLegal
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 97
Joined:
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Unread post by OTTLegal on

The fines for speeding tickets under 50km/h are set by the Chief Justice of Ontario. The fines for speeding tickets....

DO NOT FOLLOW THE FINE SCHEDULE IN THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT

The only time the fines follow that schedule in the Highway Traffic Act is for a Justice to fine someone caught speeding more than 50 km/h.

At court a set fine is not a fatal error, and is NOT something that will get the ticket canceled.




Chris Conway
Retired Toronto Traffic Officer, Hit & Run Squad Detective,
Breathalyzer Tech, Radar/Highway Patrol
Licenced Paralegal


Post Reply

Return to “Exceeding the speed limit by 16 to 29 km/h”