Fail to obey sign "No through traffic between 7-9am 4-6

xbps2
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:55 am

Fail to obey sign "No through traffic between 7-9am 4-6

by: xbps2 on
Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:18 pm

I got a ticket Feb. 2009 in toronto downtown, appeared the trial a few days ago. I have sent in the request for disclosure in Sep. because until then I got to know this forum and read through a lot of posts. Here's what happened in court:

I told the Crown that I want a trial, she tried to push me to plea guilty with a lower charge, and I denied. Then she pulled out my request for disclosure and told me that she received it and she will give it to me now, I said there is not enough time for me to read it and prepare my defense and I insisted to go to the trial and discuss this in front the JP. Then my case was pushed all the way to the last until everyone else had left the court.

So before entering a plea, I asked for adjourn because of non-disclosure (I couldnt ask for a stay because there were only 8 months), both the Crown and the JP didnt agree, they kept saying it's a simple ticket and the officer will give me a copy of his notes, that would be a good enough disclosure. (Shame on them!) However I insisted that it's my right to get a proper disclosure and I need time to prepare my defense. In the end the JP agreed to adjourn the case, however, the new trial date is only 3 weeks away and is PEREMPTORY。After the trial the officer handed me a copy of his ticket and note (it's a good handwriting and readable, I must admit), the Crown asked me to sign indicating that I received the discloure.

Any suggestion? I might have to prepare the worst and defend myself in a hard way.

P.S.: I went to the intersection that I received the ticket right after the trial, and I found this:

1. There are 3 signs at the intersection, they all are regular "no through traffic between certain period of time" signs, however, I found that there are only "MON-FRI", not "MON-FRI/LUN-VEN", does it mean a bilingual defense will work?

2. I also walked back about 200 feet (around 60M), and tried to locate the signs, they are all blocked by tree branches and leaves, therefore cannot be seen from 60M. Will this work as sound defense? The cop may argue that he issued ticket in Feb, when all leaves were gone, thus the signs were visible at that time. His hand written note also says signs visible in 60M.
Last edited by xbps2 on Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:15 am, edited 1 time in total.


xbps2
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:55 am

by: xbps2 on
Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:22 am

Thanks for the reply.

Sorry I forgot to mention the ticket was issued at a Toronto downtown intersection and the trial was held @ 60 Queen St. W.

I have just read the R.V. Myers case as it was found here: http://www.yourbestdefence.com/illegal_ ... _case.html, and discussed it with a friend, here is his reply:
The case of Myers does not have any binding authority over the issue of
bilingual signage because it was ruled by a Justice of the Peace in the
lowest court (i.e. POA court).
Only the OCJ (Ontario Court of Justice), SCJ (Superior Court of Justice), CA
(Courts of Appeal) and the SCC (Supreme Court of Canada) have authority over
the POA court. In the circumstance, you have to find out if any cases coming
from the aforesaid courts.
Therefore I am a little confused. Has anyone won their case using this approach? Or is it just Myers?


xbps2
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:55 am

by: xbps2 on
Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:55 am

As I was reading other post on this forum, an idea just come into my mind, will a trial held in French help?

My first language is not English nor French, but I can speak fluently and understand English pretty well. However, I still requested an interpreter in the trial. That seemed to be not a good idea. Why? Because I can understand what the JP and Crown were saying, but I still had to PRETEND that I didnt understand, what's even worse, the interpreter couldnt translate exactly what I want to say, a big disadvantage. Besides, both the Crown and JP wanted to take advantage of the fact that I dont speak English. For example, I clearly heard the Crown said that R.v. Stinchcome applies only to criminal offenses, not traffic offenses. She thought that I am an idiot simply because of my English incompetency. What a shame on her, even though she is not lawyer, but as a Crown prosecutor, she should have known CASE LAW.

So here is my new idea, I request the trial be held in French, which I can only speak "Bon jour" or "Oui", and request an interpreter as well, therefore I am able to focus on the defense. Also it may delay the trial as there are less French resources in Toronto, especially French interpreters, thus forcing an 11b.


xbps2
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:55 am

by: xbps2 on
Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:01 am

Thanks a lot for the clarification. I'll dig into that FLSA myself and see if something interesing can be found.


xbps2
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:55 am

by: xbps2 on
Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:19 pm

Long story short, I was in the court today, the JP sentensed me guilty as charged, despite the fact that the sign is INVISIBLE from 60 metres in Summer ( I have shown the pictures that I took) where there are lots of tree brances and leaves, while the law says the signs have to be visible AT ALL TIMES from 60 metres. The ticket was in Winter time, and the cop testified he could see the signs.

The bilingual defense was not effective either as the Crown claimed that R. V. Myers case was then overturned at later date (anyone knows about this?).

I can only come to the conclusion that the only difference between us and them is we might unintentionally break the law, while they INTENTIONALLY break the law and claim to serve the justice. What a shame!


viper1
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:31 pm

by: viper1 on
Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:13 pm

xbps2 wrote:Long story short, I was in the court today, the JP sentensed me guilty as charged, despite the fact that the sign is INVISIBLE from 60 metres in Summer ( I have shown the pictures that I took) where there are lots of tree brances and leaves, while the law says the signs have to be visible AT ALL TIMES from 60 metres. The ticket was in Winter time, and the cop testified he could see the signs.

The bilingual defense was not effective either as the Crown claimed that R. V. Myers case was then overturned at later date (anyone knows about this?).

I can only come to the conclusion that the only difference between us and them is we might unintentionally break the law, while they INTENTIONALLY break the law and claim to serve the justice. What a shame!
That does not really tell what happened?

Do you care to share the experience?

Cheers
Viper1
"hang onto your chair when reading my posts
use at your own risk"


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “Failing to obey signs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests