168 in 80 on Hwy 118 Muskoka: Paralegal/Lawyer Refererals

168 in an 80. Car is impounded for 7 days. yada yada yada.

Can anyone refer a great lawyer or paralegal in the Bracebridge/Haliburton/Minden area?

"yada yada yada" and doing twice the speed limit,

yep, right there

bobajob wrote:

yep, right there

We're you going to help, or do you just have time to troll the comments ?

That is pretty serious charge!

You need to call several (I recommend at least 4 or 5) and talk to them all.

Some lawyers/paralegals are not really interested in getting you off, but will simply try and get you a plea deal for a lower charge. Of course this might be something that you want to consider as you are probably facing an insurance SERIOUS conviction whereas a MAJOR or MINOR would be much preferred!

But regardless, you want somebody to represent you that is willing to discuss possible defenses to actually getting you off. If all they want to do is suggest a plea deal or hope the officer won't show up, then that is not the one you want. They get paid whether they win or lose, so it is up to you try to find a good one!

There is almost a 0% chance of a deal being made on this. Prosecutors may drop a stunt speed if they are over 2 or 3 Km/H maybe even a bit more on a good day, but being over by 68, not going to happen. You will be fighting the stunt charge as laid.

1> Re-read how you have posted ; i.e. the "tone" ; the "yada,yada,yada" is used as a substitute where what you should be explaining is too lengthy or tedious to recite in full, this says a lot to me

if you think a serious charge and it's details are too "tedious" to write,

2> Doing twice the speed limit, on a public highway, was your life at risk? Because you certainly put others at risk, including any LEO's, but of course "we dont know" because the details where obviously

too tedious (i.e too dull: tiresome or monotonous). to explain

Advice here is free and given by people who are not getting paid to do so, taking time out of there busy and sometimes important job roles,

Have some respect for that.

The other posters have given you the advise you need

UnknownStuntMan wrote:

bobajob wrote:

yep, right there

We're you going to help, or do you just have time to troll the comments ?

screeech wrote:

There is almost a 0% chance of a deal being made on this. Prosecutors may drop a stunt speed if they are over 2 or 3 Km/H maybe even a bit more on a good day, but being over by 68, not going to happen. You will be fighting the stunt charge as laid.

Reread the original post. It was 88 over, not 68. Really surprised you only got stunt. I'd try to find a lawyer to avoid jailtime.

What are the specific charges that you got (section numbers)?

Sorry, I'm not good in math...but that goes to further my position, it will not be dealt away.

Having the car impounded for 7 days leads me to believe it is a stunt charge under Section 172 of the Highway Traffic Act. Chances of getting any jail time, even with a high speed like that, are slim unless there is a big related driving record. The minimum fine is $2000 so you can bet the prosecutor will be asking for more on this one, as well as the possibility of a further licence suspension. And then there is what the insurance company will do...

Yes, most likely there will be no plea deal and prosecutor will seek the maximum sentence/fine.

Max fine is $10,000. Unless the driver has a horrible record, I highly doubt they will get the max, even at that speed.

jsherk wrote:

What are the specific charges that you got (section numbers)?

Thanks JSherk. Sorry to the others for my brevity. My apologies. The section is 172. (1) - I checked the HTA. It states that "No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager." But, I was alone on the road open road, no one else around. How can this be interpreted as being in a race or contest, performing a stunt" My record has been clean for more than 10 years.

Thanks,

I have never fought a charge this serious before, but here are the points I see that the prosecution has to prove...

(1) Identify you

(2) as the DRIVER

(3) of a MOTOR VEHICLE (as defined by the HTA)

(4) that was on a HIGHWAY (as defined by the HTA)

(5) that you were in a RACE or a CONTEST

(6) and that you were performing a STUNT (or that you there was some kind of BET or WAGER involved).

So you ask a good question of "How can they interpret it as a race or contest and performing a stunt"!

I do not know the answer (yet), but what happens is other people have probably asked that same question and the come to court and challenged it and then it got appealed and some appeal court judge has decided that a certain something specifically "is" or "is not".

So my guess (only a guess right now) is that there are some case laws where a Judge (not a Justice of the Peace) has decided that speeding over a certain amount constitues a "stunt" and also constitutes "racing". If there are case laws that support this, then the prosecution does not have to do much but actually prove your speed and the case law sort of automatically proves the stunt/race part without much effort on the prosecutions part.

Now of course you can always try to challenge these decisions, but you have to have a really great argument AND you have to be really good at presenting the argument as well.

They only need to prove speeding by 50Km/H or more over the posted speed limit.

@screech - so there is case law saying over 50 is racing and stunt?

Regulation 455/07 states:

Definition, "stunt"

3. For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, "stunt" includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours: 7. Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit.

There are many ways inwhich a stunt can be done. This charge has been challenged in court many times and it stands. Yes, there is case law to support the stunting legislation.

Okay that is good information. The full regulation is here:

http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/070455

And it also defines "race and contest" which would be:

Definition, "race" and "contest"

2. (1) For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, "race" and "contest" include any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:

3. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

i. driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed,

So then it is as I thought it might be... if the prosecution can prove the speed, then the race/contest and stunt part is also proven based on this regulation.

jsherk wrote:

Yes, most likely there will be no plea deal and prosecutor will seek the maximum sentence/fine.

At set date, JP recommended 60 Day Lic Susp. and $3000 fine if plead guilty. (Its my first stunt offence, so not sure why its not just 30 according to the HTA)

If go to trial, JP says 90 Day Lic Susp. and $4000.

Next step is consider with Paralegal, then see if we need to look for plea deal, guilty, or go to trial based on disclosure.

Thoughts? Thanks!

At this point I would hire a lawyer to review your case and seek out a plea. (You should have done this from the start). I wouldn't expect much, but, if there is a good result to be had it will come from a pro.

I assume you mean the prosecutor and not the JP.

If you go to trial and LOSE, the prosecutor will then make a recommendation to the JP about the penalty, meaning he/she will say "we are asking for 90 day suspension and $4000 fine because of bla bla bla". You (or your representative) will then get a chance to say "we are asking for 30 day suspension and $1000 fine because of bla bla bla".

The JP will then decide the suspension and fine amount. The JP can actually decide something different (more or less) than both of you asked for.

Michelle Scott of Scott Paralegal, in Huntsville has some good fight in her.

screeech wrote:

Michelle Scott of Scott Paralegal, in Huntsville has some good fight in her.

I've already got a paralegal. I just wanted to discuss with some of the previous posters in the comments to provide some ongoing fodder for discussion.

Cheers,

Did you get a paralegal speak to the prosecutor or was that all you?

UnknownStuntMan wrote:

screeech wrote:

Michelle Scott of Scott Paralegal, in Huntsville has some good fight in her.

I've already got a paralegal. I just wanted to discuss with some of the previous posters in the comments to provide some ongoing fodder for discussion.

Cheers,

And kudos to you for coming back with info. Lots of people post the issue and then disappear so we never know how it turned out.