I am new in here, and over the last 5 years, this is my first ticket that I got on Mar 28, 2010 on Highway 400 southbound near White Falls and Port Severn Area.
I was coming back to Toronto from MacTier. The time was midnight 12:05 am. The streets up north were totally deserted. As soon as I crossed White Falls area, I saw an unmarked car entering highway 400 from some local street, I crossed him not knowing that he was a cop. I was not really watching my speed and this cop came behind me from far at very high speed and continued on with very high lights, i changed the lanes on purpose and he changed lanes behind me too, I still could not tell whether he was a cop, then after two minutes, he turned his lights on. At first I was scared to pull off on a deserted place with no one around, but I did. He came out and told me that he caught me at $125km/hr and asked for my license , insurance and ownership and I obliged.
Later he came back with a ticket saying 115km/hr on 100 zone and told me please mail the cheque to Orillia and that you will not lose any points.
I would like to get some of you expert's advice as how to proceed. My insurance is coming up for renewal in two months, shall I fight this ticket or pay the fine? How much will my insurance go up with.
I will have to drive to Orillia to plead not guilty, I have never been to court before, what shall i be asking there. Do you get a disclosure right there when you go to plead not guilty? If I do go to trial, what can i say in trial?
Some of the things, it was very foggy near port severn and white falls area and that is why you could hardly see anything on the road at midnight. The officer just came behind as he was moving and not standing still with a Radar, so could the radar make a mistake due to fog, could that be used.
One of the funniest thing about this is when the officer came out first, he told me that I got you at 105km/hr and then he repeated 125km/hr. and then he put 115km/hr on ticket. If you notice 105 and 115, the office has touch time recognizing between 0 and 1. I am saying this because on the ticket he put a wrong month of my birth day. The month of my birth is 11 (nov) and he put 01 (jan). Could that be used for something?
What other things can I find on the ticket to get this dropped. It is a yellow ticket and everything is written with hands.
Any one of you experts help will be much appreciated.
Many thanks to all of you.
Pay the $52.50 and forget about it is my advice.
R. v. Winslow says they can amend it up...
As for the mistake on your date of birth that can also be amended...you got a gift...
Can they issue a new ticket with 125km/hr?
PS I thought it was R. v. Winslow, but it was R. v. Wannamaker...this is why you pay your 15 overs...
R. v. Wanamaker
Her Majesty the Queen, and
 O.J. No. 1581
Ontario Court of Justice
Y. Renaud J.
Oral judgment: January 25, 2005.
Criminal law ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â€ Appeals ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â€ Procedure ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â€ Information or indictment ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â€ Amendment ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â€ Transportation law ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â€ Motor vehicles ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â€ Offences ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â€ Speeding.
Appeal by Wanamaker from his conviction for speeding. Wanamaker was clocked traveling 113 km/h in an 80 km/h zone. The officer exercised his discretion to issue a ticket for traveling at 100 km/h. At trial, the judge granted the Crown leave to amend its certificate to allege that Wanakamer traveled at the speed at which he was clocked. Wanamaker was informed of the proposed amendment prior to trial and elected to proceed with his defence, notwithstanding the amendment. Wanamaker was convicted. He appealed on the basis that he would have paid the ticket as originally prepared had he known that he faced a higher penalty under the increased speed.
HELD: Appeal dismissed. Wanamaker was aware of the amendment and could have either entered a plea to the offence prior to the amendment, or sought an adjournment. Wanamaker chose to proceed and was thus precluded from arguing that he was treated unjustly or prejudiced in the course of his defence. Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited:
Provincial Offences Act, s. 34.
F. Perron, for the prosecution/respondent
M. Grossi, for the defendatemnt/appellant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
¶ 1 Y. RENAUD J. (orally):ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â€ The defendant appeals his conviction for speeding, specifically that he travelled at one hundred and thirteen kilometres an hour in an eighty kilometre per hour zone.
¶ 2 The evidence indicates that the defendant was told by the officer, who pulled him over, that he was travelling at one hundred and thirteen kilometres per hour. The officer exercised some discretion and prepared the Certificate of Offence charging the defendant with speeding at the rate of one hundred kilometres per hour in an eighty kilometre per hour zone.
¶ 3 At the commencement of the proceedings on the day of trial, prior to the defendant having been arraigned, the prosecution advised the court that it would, during the course of trial, be seeking an amendment to the Certificate of Offence by increasing the alleged speed from one hundred kilometres per hour to one hundred and thirteen kilometres per hour. The defendant, who was present on the day of trial and represented by an agent, entered a plea of not guilty and proceeded with the trial.
¶ 4 Later on in the proceedings, just as the prosecution had advised to begin with, the prosecution sought the amendment to the alleged speed. The trial court heard argument on the requested amendment and determined that it was proper to grant the amendment to accord with the evidence received.
¶ 5 Though the trial justice does not so expressly state, it is sufficiently apparent from his reasons that the court took into account the important fact that the defendant had been alerted, prior to his plea, that the prosecution was intending to seek the amendment in question. The presiding justice noted that the defendant conducted his defence notwithstanding the expectation that the prosecution would be seeking the amendment.
¶ 6 The considerations that guide the trial court in deciding whether to grant an amendment to an information or certificate are stated in s. 34 of the Provincial Offences Act. The trial justice was obviously aware of these considerations since submissions were made to the court on this point.
¶ 7 Pursuant to the section, the question whether or not to grant the amendment is a question of law.
¶ 8 On this appeal, as well as at the trial itself, the agent for the defendant submits that had the defendant known that he would be facing a higher penalty, given the increased speed alleged, the defendant may well have opted to pay the ticket as originally prepared. One might also concede that if the defendant had known that the charge to be tried was more serious (given the increased speed being alleged), was more serious than that which was stated on the Certificate of Offence, different or greater efforts would have been made to defend the charge.
¶ 9 The difficulty for the appellant in this case is that the prosecution did inform the court, and in so doing alerted the defendant, that an amendment would be sought. It would have been open for the defendant, had he felt prejudiced or unjustly treated by this request, to ask for an adjournment to further consider his options, or indeed, to enter a plea to the certificate as it then read, prior to the amendment being granted. The defendant did neither and chose to proceed with the trial.
¶ 10 The court has.considered the case of R. v. Antunes,  O.J. No. 4898, a decision of Justice Halikowski. In that case the trial court had granted the amendment, increasing the alleged speed of the defendant's vehicle, this amendment having been granted at the end of the trial, after the plea had been entered and after the evidence had been taken, without the defendant having been informed prior to the commencement of the trial that the amendment would be sought. Indeed, the defendant had not appeared at trial and was represented by an agent. The defendant called no evidence.
¶ 11 On appeal, the court rejected the appellant's argument that the amendment at the conclusion of the Crown's case ought not have been granted and that the amendment was prejudicial or unjust to the appellant. Justice Halikowski was not of the view that in the case before him the increased speed stated in the certificate would have influenced the line of defence and determined that the amendment caused the defendant no prejudice, citing the case of R. v. Irwin (1998), 38 O.R. (3d) 689, at page 698 where Justice Doherty emphasized that the accused cannot be found to have been prejudiced where he has had a full opportunity to meet the issues and where the conduct of the defence would have been the same, even if the amendment had not been made or if the charge had been earlier amended.
¶ 12 Each case, where an amendment is sought, turns on its own facts. In the present case, the court is not concerned with a situation where the unannounced amendment is sought at the conclusion of the Crown's case or at the conclusion of trial. In my view, granting an amendment, without forewarning to the defendant at the conclusion of trial, would more readily support an argument of injustice or prejudice. The court might offer that it would be more helpful if the prosecution were to have advised the defendant well before the trial date of its intention to seek the requested amendment to accord with the anticipated evidence of the officer. This would remove any possibility of inconvenience or additional delay or cost to the defendant, which may otherwise result from the amendment request being announced on the day of trial. This, I would consider, to be a counsel of perfection and not a consideration that would provide necessary merit for a successful appeal in the present case.
¶ 13 I am not called upon to support or depart from the reasoning of Justice Halikowski in Antunes. In the present case, the defendant knew, prior to the commencement of the trial, that the amendment would be sought. It would have been entirely open to the defendant to request an adjournment rather than risk proceeding to trial on the certificate that would inevitably be amended to accord with the evidence.
¶ 14 The defendant chose to proceed. He cannot now successfully complain that he was prejudiced in his defence or treated unjustly.
¶ 15 The appeal is dismissed.
Y. RENAUD J.
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
That was very informal.
Now I am wondering if i do go and plead not guilty, just to buy some time to see if the officer shows up or not. Would the prosecution tell me in advance whether they will ask for amendment of the ticket. And if they do, can I enter a plea of guilty with the original ticket of 115km/hr or will the court now force me to go to trial?
Thank you so much for explaining the case and the precedent previously set in court.
The minute you arrive in court they can request the amendment. Then you went down there for nothing but the increased penalty and fine...
You got a gift, don't play games.
I have never missed a single court appearance in 22 years, this is true for most officers. Granted in the big cities probably less so.
50% in Toronto.FyreStorm wrote:I have never missed a single court appearance in 22 years, this is true for most officers. Granted in the big cities probably less so.
- Zero demerit pointsDuke wrote:Another question, if i pay, is this considered a minor offense or no?
- Possible, but not definite, small insurance increase for 3 years (depends on provider)
- Conviction stays on driver abstract for 3 years
No. It's a gamble you would take.Duke wrote:Would the prosecution tell me in advance whether they will ask for amendment of the ticket.
* 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
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
The reason I wanted to go to the court was because this officer didn't really know what he was doing, he scared me, he chased me on unmarked car and I changed lanes twice to let him go ahead of me but he would change lane just behind me and keep using "high beams" or head lighting whatever you call it. That was not appropriate. I was in a middle of nowhere and I honestly thought this guy was messing with me and I was about to speed up more before he turned his colourful lights on.
And Fyrestorm, do you know what radar he might have been using? And its too foggy in that area at midnight for him to properly lock his radar.
Hey guys, I appreciate all of your help, I still have 13 days to decide what to do.
Many thanks folks, but I truly believe officers should be more trained not to chase people at night in deserted place, i mean he wanted to give ticket, he should have turned his car lights on right from beginning.
Can you meet justice of peace and resolve the issue before the trial starts?
We're getting LASER / VIDEO soon, which means...100% conviction rates...well in theory...it does everything, measures distance, records video, capture plate, driver details, and the range is crazy...
As for fog...it reduces the distance that the device will register speed but the meaqsurement is still accurate...
The plea has to be on consent of the prosecution, so no you can't do it early...
Turning lights on immediately is dangerous to do, unless exigent circumstances.Duke wrote:Many thanks folks, but I truly believe officers should be more trained not to chase people at night in deserted place, i mean he wanted to give ticket, he should have turned his car lights on right from beginning.
For many reasons:
- we want to check the plate prior to a stop, thru dispatch, sometimes that takes several minutes and km travelled
- we want to control where the vehicle is stopped (ie not by a barrier, curve, hill etc..) so it is more visible for other motorists, so we do not get hit on the shoulder....so we will wait to stop a vehicle
- we usually turn on rear lights "first" to alert traffic behind, wait for them to clear away/back off, so we eliminate getting rear ended, then turn on the front lighting
Like Fyrestorm mentioned, radar in fog/rain/snow, the range is reduced, not the accuracy.
And it all of a sudden is dark and we can not chase ppl ..
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Or it may prove errors......We're getting LASER / VIDEO soon, which means...100% conviction rates...well in theory...it does everything, measures distance, records video, capture plate, driver details, and the range is crazy...
Cool, it's now safe to speed at night..........wa-who......jkAnd it all of a sudden is dark and we can not chase ppl .. Laughing Laughing Laughing
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
- Similar Topics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests