I go to court Thursday.
Here are the issues of the ticket.
Travelling west on King Street, made the left at approx 5pm on to Atlantic. (no left turn betw. 4-6pm)
Didn't see the sign... (Yes you've all heard it before, but it's true).
On the ticket, in the Did commit the offence of: section, the officer wrote proceed contrary to sign at intersection. She did not write the HTA offence #
1. Is this enough to be deemed a fatal error?
2. Is it true I should object to the ticket as I am being called up?
3. If they amend the ticket at the trial, should I request an adjournment to better prepare my defence (the prosecution's fault since policelady didn't fill in ticket correctly) and then go for an 11b?(too long for trial).
According to R.R.O. 1990, REGULATION 615 (section 45) A sign needs to be placed within a sightline of at least 60 meters.
The two main signs appear to have a clear sightline of approx 38 meters. (signs on left side of road and top right side of road)
The sign on the far middle right side of the intersection has a sightline of approx 16.75 meters.
4. Anyone hear of this working on this intersection? I just took some pictures of the intersection today and did some haphazard measurements.
My pictures back up my measurements, and I have one with a streetcar in it to add dimension to the photo and to prove my measurements. (TTC LRV is 50ft8" long) Picture appears to show room for 2.5 streetcars(or less) between initial line of sight and sign.
5.Should I just try to convince the judge that I couldn't see the sign?
Ticket happened on June 15th at 5pm. Sun was bright/glaring, and directly between the two main lights. Tunnel is long and dark, takes a second for eyes to focus.
I looked at the far right sign that is at the stop line of the intersection. (no sign on this light) It was green, I checked for traffic (OMG no cars!) then for pedestrians as it is an awkward intersection.... at this point I am already into the turn. At 50km/hr you have 2.75 seconds from time you can see lights, to time you hit the intersection... actually less. because I used 38 meters for my calculation.
This situation is how the incident felt to me, but I don't honestly believe a judge would let it pass.
A final option would be to try and plead down to a municipal bylaw infraction. perhaps "Metro Toronto Bylaw 32-92 section 39(1)?
6.Think this might work?
7. Do I pick my best defence or throw all of them at the JP?
Any advice is appreciated.
I will update my results Thursday night. (The most annoying thing I found was that people would ask for advice on these types of tickets, and then not post the results)
In the "did commit the offence of:" it is written "Proceed contrary to sign at intersection"
So I should say the offence I am charged with is "Not known to law" and reference "R. v. Hargan, 2009"
your best course of action is NOT to attend trial, in your absence the JP SHOULD see the missing section number and quash it
however if the JP doesn't see the missing section number, you'll have excellent grounds to appeal and re-open the case and ultimately get it tossed
if you go to trial, the crown will just amend the face of the ticket with s144 (9)
Hope this works.
Fingers crossed on the JP catching the error.
Otherwise I will file the appeal.
I will use this thread as a trip report, and let you all know the results, and what happens if it makes it to the appeal stage.
Gathering cases for appeal now
This seems like it will be pretty straight-forward once I get the right paperwork in order.
The problem I think I'm going to have is.... getting the paperwork in order.
1. Must I wait until I receive something in the mail? Or can I go to the courts and appeal right away?
2. I must pay the fine first. This is correct?
3. Do I need to get a transcript? I wasn't there, so I assume no?
4. When I file the appeal, do I need to include any specific information? i.e. why appealing? under a specific act? Do I need to include the cases I intend to use? (ie. London vs Young, Barrie vs Porter)
5.Any other tips you have that you think I should know?
In R vs Montone http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight. ... cj251.htmlStanton wrote:Sorry, my response is a little late I guess, but IÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢d disagree that you have fatal error. I was under the impression that Courts were okay with the section number being missing as long as the offence itself is clearly spelled out. The case you reference (R v Hargan) states this. Your ticket appears to have the correct short form wording for the charge, so I donÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢t believe the missing section number is sufficient.
(40)In the case at bar, an Act named ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚ËœRed light fail to stopÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢ was specified. That is an Act that is not known to law. The Justice of the Peace did not amend the certificate of offence. Since the defendant was deemed not to dispute, neither the defendant nor his representative nor anyone representing the Respondent was before the Justice of the Peace to make any representations of any kind. It was the responsibility of the Justice of the Peace to examine the certificate of offence and determine whether it was ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Ëœcomplete and regularÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢ on its face. If that had been done he could not have failed to see a serious defect on the face of the certificate of offence. In my opinion failure to do so caused him to lose jurisdiction. The certificate is so defective that it could not have been cured at that stage. It ought to have been quashed by the Justice of the Peace when he reviewed it.
I'm going to take the opposing opinion to yours.
Although, now I'm a little nervous.
I tried to upload a scan of the ticket.
This is also from R v Montone.
 The Appellant submits further that:
(a) there is no statute on the certificate of offence under which he was charged. In the area where the name of the statute should have been inserted, the words ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚ËœRed light fail to stopÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢ are inserted;
(b) that the absence on the offence notice served upon him of any statute under which he was charged and the absence of any amount payable could have caused him to believe that what he received was a warning; and
(c) that the Justice of the Peace ought to have quashed the certificate because it was not complete and regular on its face.
This coupled with the above mentioned (40), I think I'm better than 50% on this. Definitely not feeling 100% on it though.
Edit to add: I do appreciate your input.... I'd rather hear about it here first, so I can at least try and come up with something to argue with. Much Appreciated.