Hello, I got a ticket today which was reduced to '15 over' (no points). I think the actual speed was 70-something in a 50 (speed trap on a main road during rush hour...grr...) I called a traffic ticket hotline thing and asked them some questions regarding fighting the ticket. They said that because the ticket was reduced, it is not worth fighting because if I lose, the prosecution or the officer can re-write the ticket in the original amount - in otherwords if I chose to fight this 15-over ticket and lose, they can give me a much higher ticket with 3 points. Can anyone verify this claim? If anyone knows the answer and can back it up with documentation that would be great..I don't want to take any chances with this as points on my license would really mess me up. Thanks!
Hello,
I got a ticket today which was reduced to '15 over' (no points). I think the actual speed was 70-something in a 50 (speed trap on a main road during rush hour...grr...)
I called a traffic ticket hotline thing and asked them some questions regarding fighting the ticket. They said that because the ticket was reduced, it is not worth fighting because if I lose, the prosecution or the officer can re-write the ticket in the original amount - in otherwords if I chose to fight this 15-over ticket and lose, they can give me a much higher ticket with 3 points.
Can anyone verify this claim? If anyone knows the answer and can back it up with documentation that would be great..I don't want to take any chances with this as points on my license would really mess me up.
Yes they can do that and do it all the time. A recent decision in the court of appeals upheld that ability too. So, either pay the ticket or take your chances.
Yes they can do that and do it all the time. A recent decision in the court of appeals upheld that ability too. So, either pay the ticket or take your chances.
The higher charge won't affect your record with the insurance company any worse than the reduced charge. If you have under 6 demerits and don't want a conviction on your record, fight it. If you don't mind having a conviction on your record (which your insurance company will use to raise your rates especially if you have another one, even if it's for 5 over the limit) pay the reduced fine. If you'd like to keep your record clean, take it to court.
The higher charge won't affect your record with the insurance company any worse than the reduced charge. If you have under 6 demerits and don't want a conviction on your record, fight it. If you don't mind having a conviction on your record (which your insurance company will use to raise your rates especially if you have another one, even if it's for 5 over the limit) pay the reduced fine. If you'd like to keep your record clean, take it to court.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
Regardless, the ticket will be considered a "minor conviction." Some companies do let one slide. Some claim to let one slide but they eliminate your "conviction-free discount." Some immediately raise your rate. Last time I paid a ticket (without the intention to appeal) was when I got a 5 over ticket, while I still had a 10 over ticket. My rates went up significantly. (*) My take on it is that if I drive around with a clean record, I have the peace of mind that my insurance won't go up (or at least won't go up by a lot) if I do get charged and convicted for something. (*) At the time, due to my age/gender I was already paying more for a compact sedan than I'm paying now for a car and a 600cc supersport bike, so the 15-20% insurance rate increase was a big deal.
Regardless, the ticket will be considered a "minor conviction." Some companies do let one slide. Some claim to let one slide but they eliminate your "conviction-free discount." Some immediately raise your rate. Last time I paid a ticket (without the intention to appeal) was when I got a 5 over ticket, while I still had a 10 over ticket. My rates went up significantly. (*)
My take on it is that if I drive around with a clean record, I have the peace of mind that my insurance won't go up (or at least won't go up by a lot) if I do get charged and convicted for something.
(*) At the time, due to my age/gender I was already paying more for a compact sedan than I'm paying now for a car and a 600cc supersport bike, so the 15-20% insurance rate increase was a big deal.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
thanks guys. I'm still waiting to talk to my insurance to see what their policy is. I'm thinking of fighting it though, and I would love to get some advice based on these facts: First of all, I want to ask for some sort of proof or evidence that the gun was targeted at me, and not the person in the lane next to me where traffic was moving much faster. Does this seem like a reasonable approach, and what should I expect? The reasons for this are as follows. I have been having issues with my clutch slipping recently, and am in the process of getting it repaired. Because of this I have had to be extra careful not to accelerate quickly and risk doing further damage to the car. So I have been watching my speed even more than usual. The officers were located 300m from the intersection where I turned on to the road. I had to come to a complete stop and was waiting to turn left, which means that in order for me to have been going 70-something like they claim they clocked me at, I would have had to have accelerated quite quickly in order to get to that speed within 150 metres (or whatever the range for a radar gun is, minus the 300 m distance they were from the intersection where I turned on to the road). Given the fact that I was driving very passively due to my clutch, and also given that this trap was set up at an area about 2 minutes from my home, and is a known speed trap location, where I see the trap every week, it doesn't make sense that I would have been going that fast. I know the officer's word is taken as the truth, so if he says he clocked me going xxx then the court will believe he clocked me going at xxx. How am I supposed to fight this?
thanks guys. I'm still waiting to talk to my insurance to see what their policy is. I'm thinking of fighting it though, and I would love to get some advice based on these facts:
First of all, I want to ask for some sort of proof or evidence that the gun was targeted at me, and not the person in the lane next to me where traffic was moving much faster. Does this seem like a reasonable approach, and what should I expect? The reasons for this are as follows.
I have been having issues with my clutch slipping recently, and am in the process of getting it repaired. Because of this I have had to be extra careful not to accelerate quickly and risk doing further damage to the car. So I have been watching my speed even more than usual. The officers were located 300m from the intersection where I turned on to the road. I had to come to a complete stop and was waiting to turn left, which means that in order for me to have been going 70-something like they claim they clocked me at, I would have had to have accelerated quite quickly in order to get to that speed within 150 metres (or whatever the range for a radar gun is, minus the 300 m distance they were from the intersection where I turned on to the road). Given the fact that I was driving very passively due to my clutch, and also given that this trap was set up at an area about 2 minutes from my home, and is a known speed trap location, where I see the trap every week, it doesn't make sense that I would have been going that fast. I know the officer's word is taken as the truth, so if he says he clocked me going xxx then the court will believe he clocked me going at xxx. How am I supposed to fight this?
Many people get caught in an enforcement zone they KNOW exists. Was the officer using laser or radar? What proof or evidence do you want from the officer? The only evidence you're going to get is his/her statement that he pointed the radar/laser at your car.
Many people get caught in an enforcement zone they KNOW exists. Was the officer using laser or radar? What proof or evidence do you want from the officer? The only evidence you're going to get is his/her statement that he pointed the radar/laser at your car.
Speeding tickets are considered an absolute liability offences. What it means is that if prosecution proves that you exceeded speed limit, it is not open to the defendant to exonerate him/herself by explaining yes, I was speeding because....... A defence of nesessity is still applicable to speeding offences and is a difficult task. In most speeding tickets nesessity is not an issue. So, returning to your comment what needs to be proven in court. 1. Police officer has to be qualified to operate a particular device (Laser / Radar) 2. The device has to be operated in accordance with manufacturer's speciffications (testing, observations, etc). All of the above information is open to cross-examination in court. If you manage to establish an inconsistency - you are in good spot.
Speeding tickets are considered an absolute liability offences. What it means is that if prosecution proves that you exceeded speed limit, it is not open to the defendant to exonerate him/herself by explaining yes, I was speeding because.......
A defence of nesessity is still applicable to speeding offences and is a difficult task. In most speeding tickets nesessity is not an issue.
So, returning to your comment what needs to be proven in court.
1. Police officer has to be qualified to operate a particular device (Laser / Radar)
2. The device has to be operated in accordance with manufacturer's speciffications (testing, observations, etc).
All of the above information is open to cross-examination in court. If you manage to establish an inconsistency - you are in good spot.
Hey guys, thanks for the info so far. Here's one more question though. If I opt for trial and ask for disclosure, and when I receive it I am satisfied that everything is in order, proper procedure was followed, etc, can I at that point change my plea and avoid the court session? Or would I go to court still and just plead guilty right away? Is this a reasonable thing to do or would the judge likely throw the book at me for 'wasting the court's time'?
Hey guys,
thanks for the info so far. Here's one more question though. If I opt for trial and ask for disclosure, and when I receive it I am satisfied that everything is in order, proper procedure was followed, etc, can I at that point change my plea and avoid the court session? Or would I go to court still and just plead guilty right away? Is this a reasonable thing to do or would the judge likely throw the book at me for 'wasting the court's time'?
Actually, if you show up in court, everything was ok with the disclosure and the cop shows up, you can plead guilty and probably get a reduced fine, for not wasting any more of court's time 8)
Actually, if you show up in court, everything was ok with the disclosure and the cop shows up, you can plead guilty and probably get a reduced fine, for not wasting any more of court's time
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
The fine was already reduced, the only reason I am not 100% certain about going to court is because I am afraid the prosecutor might raise the charge back to the original amount (which has points with it). Although, I feel that since it is my right to fight the charge, having the prosecutor move to revert the charge to the original non-reduced amount violates my right to dispute / fight the ticket in the reduced amount...does it not?
FiReSTaRT wrote:
Actually, if you show up in court, everything was ok with the disclosure and the cop shows up, you can plead guilty and probably get a reduced fine, for not wasting any more of court's time
The fine was already reduced, the only reason I am not 100% certain about going to court is because I am afraid the prosecutor might raise the charge back to the original amount (which has points with it). Although, I feel that since it is my right to fight the charge, having the prosecutor move to revert the charge to the original non-reduced amount violates my right to dispute / fight the ticket in the reduced amount...does it not?
The Crown has the ability to bring the speed back up to the original speed. Court of Appeal ruling 3-0 in favour of Crown "ammending up" the offence to the original speed. Here is the thread on the case: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic1393.html
apparently_speeding wrote:
Although, I feel that since it is my right to fight the charge, having the prosecutor move to revert the charge to the original non-reduced amount violates my right to dispute / fight the ticket in the reduced amount...does it not?
The Crown has the ability to bring the speed back up to the original speed. Court of Appeal ruling 3-0 in favour of Crown "ammending up" the offence to the original speed.
You can enter a guilty plea at any time. If you decide to appear at your trial date and plea guilty to the ticket "as is" it is open to you. At that point prosecution or Justice of the Peace cannot interfere or disallow your intention to plead guilty. Prosecution may ask for the speed to be amended only if you shoose to conduct a trial.
You can enter a guilty plea at any time. If you decide to appear at your trial date and plea guilty to the ticket "as is" it is open to you. At that point prosecution or Justice of the Peace cannot interfere or disallow your intention to plead guilty.
Prosecution may ask for the speed to be amended only if you shoose to conduct a trial.
alright, thanks guys, I really appreciate the advice. I guess I just have to decide if it's worth fighting and taking my chances or not. Still worried the charge will be raised back to the original if I don't make my decisions properly etc... 13 days left to decide :/
Traffic Law wrote:
You can enter a guilty plea at any time. If you decide to appear at your trial date and plea guilty to the ticket "as is" it is open to you. At that point prosecution or Justice of the Peace cannot interfere or disallow your intention to plead guilty.
Prosecution may ask for the speed to be amended only if you shoose to conduct a trial.
alright, thanks guys, I really appreciate the advice. I guess I just have to decide if it's worth fighting and taking my chances or not. Still worried the charge will be raised back to the original if I don't make my decisions properly etc...
Request trial, when you receive your trial notice, request disclosure. If the trial is more than a year from the offense date, you stand a good chance of getting off on 11b. If you don't receive the disclosure, at worst you get your case adjourned (thus boosting your chances of 11b) and at best you get it dismissed. If the cop doesn't show up, you get your case dismissed. If you get the disclosure, the court date is within a "reasonable" amount of time and the cop shows up, when they ask you how you plead, just say "guilty your Worship" and they can't amend the charge 8)
Request trial, when you receive your trial notice, request disclosure. If the trial is more than a year from the offense date, you stand a good chance of getting off on 11b. If you don't receive the disclosure, at worst you get your case adjourned (thus boosting your chances of 11b) and at best you get it dismissed. If the cop doesn't show up, you get your case dismissed. If you get the disclosure, the court date is within a "reasonable" amount of time and the cop shows up, when they ask you how you plead, just say "guilty your Worship" and they can't amend the charge
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
The prosecutor can't request an amendment unless you plead "not guilty" and proceed to trial. So, yes -- you will be able to plead "guilty" before they have the opportunity to amend the charge. Might be a good idea for you to go to court one day and observe a trial. It helped me to understand how trials proceed.
The prosecutor can't request an amendment unless you plead "not guilty" and proceed to trial. So, yes -- you will be able to plead "guilty" before they have the opportunity to amend the charge. Might be a good idea for you to go to court one day and observe a trial. It helped me to understand how trials proceed.
Here is the information about doing an 11b application. You have to prepare the application, file it properly, then argue it to the court against the prosecutor. Here is a link giving more information. The delay has to be the fault of the prosecution, so you cant remand your case creating a delay, then try to argue an 11b application.
Here is the information about doing an 11b application.
You have to prepare the application, file it properly, then argue it to the court against the prosecutor. Here is a link giving more information.
The delay has to be the fault of the prosecution, so you cant remand your case creating a delay, then try to argue an 11b application.
Chris Conway
Retired Toronto Traffic Officer, Hit & Run Squad Detective,
Breathalyzer Tech, Radar/Highway Patrol
Licenced Paralegal
I have a problem and not sure what the hell to do about it. Few days ago I was stopped on a street going westbound against blinding afternoon sun following the flow of traffic. I drive a taxi for living in Toronto and have ACZ driver's license. I have a perfect record both for professional as well regular demerit points. I haven't been pulled over as a matter of fact in some 15 years for…
I have recently gone to court for a speeding ticket issued by an OPP officer. As it stood, the officer forgot to sign the ticket. So at my trial, before I made a plea, I pointed this out to the justice of the peace and asked that the ticket be quashed. I was asked to produce my copy of the ticket, which I gave and the JOP then agreed with me and dismissed the case. Before he did so, the…
I got pulled over (along with about 10 other cars) for going through a road closed sign. I had just pulled out of a parking lot pretty much right beside the road closed sign, and with about 4 cars behind me there wasn't much I could do but go through, so I think I have a good chance of fighting it. However, on my ticket under the Signature of issuing Provincial Offences Officer, it's left…
So here's my situation, any advice would be appreciated.
On June 26, 2013 I received a ticket for 25 over in a 60 zone
In early October I received my notice of trial (Feb 25, 2014)
In early January I sent in my request for disclosure
In late January I received a letter to pick up my disclosure, however when I picked up my disclosure it wasn't typed (I had requested it to be) and I needed…
Is there a legal requirement to report an accident to the insurer?
Scenario
- 2 vehicle accident
- each vehicle has less than $1000 damage
- each vehicle has damage roughly equal to insurance deductible
- a police Accident Report was completed
In this scenario the drivers decided to repair their own damages. But are they legally bound to report the accident and damages to the insurer? ...and out of…
I will be representing my wife at her speeding trial next week. Mostly everything is pretty much run of the mill but since she wasn't speeding we will be having her take the stand. Since this opens up the opportunity for the prosecutor to cross examine, I am just wondering if anyone here knows what kind of questions we should expect from the prosecutor in order to best prepare.
i got pulled over by a cop this morning in my kids's school zone for failure to stop at a stop sign. i am thinking of fighting this ticket, but i noticed that on the ticket itself it only says "disobey stop sign - fail to stop" and there is no mention of the demerit points. a co-worker mentioned to me that a ticket should state how many demerit points i am being docked. i know the Highway Traffic…
Alright, so this happened back awhile ago on June and I haven't appeared in Court. However, I would like some inputs and advice before I get into this battle.
Back in June I got a Speeding Ticket claiming I was going 100km/h on Blackcreek going south towards Lawrence. The Speed Limit there is 70km/h.
At this point of time, it was roughly traffic hour around 4-5PM. Coming off of the Highway, and…
Ive already done searches, read the act as best i can but still haven't read a complete answer. Where in the HTA does it state that the front license plate must be attached to the front bumper? I have it on the passenger sun visor (if ppl remember the old temp permits that taped to the pass side of windshield) i figured that this spot would be the same. However now they have got rid of…
My son was returning from school and was just entering the driveway when another vehicle hit the rear end. Police writes a ticket "fail to yield from private drive" 139(i). He is going to fight this ticket and made an application for disclosure. The trial is next week and he still hasn't received the disclosure.
He checked with the court last month and they said that they will call when disclosure…
i was travelling on the 401 (posted speed 100km/h) in the far left lane, when i caught up to a vehicle going ~110km/h. I patiently waited for the vehicle to move over a lane, but they did not. The vehicle behind me moved to the center lane to pass, but because he was a safe distance behind me, i moved into the middle lane ahead of him to pass the slower moving car. When I accelerated, i…
So I was returning from my honeymoon in Montreal, and was cruising down the 401 just inside the Ontario/Quebec border. I was passing one of the Onroute stations and saw an OPP cruiser. I checked my speed and I was doing 120. A few kilometers up the road the cruiser pulled me over and told me I was clocked doing 132 by the aircraft. I was a little surprised to see the ticket was for the full…
I made a right turn during prohibited hours (7am-6pm) in Toronto. I was ticketed by a COP who was specially watching for that trap.
After I've received the ticket HTA144(9), I discovered one of the seven digits of my license plate was incorrectly written on my ticket. I was thinking about to make a First Attendance at the court office to see the prosecutor for a reduced charge...any advice or…
Have been busy and haven't had much time to follow up on this...
Went to court having not received disclosure (and was not organized enough to apply for a stay), so the trial was adjourned. They photocopied the officer's ticket and notes and provided a log sheet from the plane. I've sent another request for the rest of the disclosure items.
So here's my question -- can an officer amend the ticket…
I am not sure if my case is really a case of " mis-use parking permit" and need some advises on whether i should fight the ticket. Here is what happened:
During the labor day long weekend, I took my parents to diner at a local shopping mall. (my father's hip was broken in 2016 and he's been on wheelchair since, the permit is in his name and I been using the permit to help him for doctor's…
I have a court date coming up where I need to subpoena one of the officers that was present when I got my ticket. The issuing officer didn't include the fact that the second one was present at the time in his report (disclosure) but did give me the second officers name and badge number after the judge told him to do it.
What I'm looking for help with is the process of me getting to…
I got pulled over on a 4 lane section fo Highway 7... Thank god I didn't get a stay at home ticket as well or my car impounded.
Officer clocked me at 156 km/h he decided not to impound my car and give me a 149 km/h since it was my first offence and he said I was polite and respectful. I would give this officer a 5/5 review if I could, very polite and respectful.
Long story short, I was driving from Toronto to Ottawa and around Napanee with my friend in two separated cars, the officer was parked on uturn. He followed us turn his light on and got between us and pulled us over, he told me that i was running at 152 km/h without showing me his LISAR. they suspended my and my friends license and impounded the two cars for 7 days. This was a Friday in January…
I'm unsure on what to do here. I was under the impression that I could request a stay on the day of trial because disclosure was not given to me in an adequate time. I requested disclosure 2x by fax, 5 months ago.
I read on ticketcombat that I had to file a motion 15 days prior to the trial to request a stay of proceedings.
Does anyone else get blinded by fog lights on rural roads? I don't seem to have a problem with them on lighted streets, but the badly aimed fog lights or ones with a poor cutoff really get to me when driving the Escort. I just came back from a 20-minute drive, and every single pickup truck had fog lights on, and forced me to focus on the bottom right of the road. My windshield is clean and…
