In a nutshell, in York Region, ran a stale yellow, cop was on a 407 off ramp and tickets me for red light. 2 week old pink slip, I forgot I put the new behind the expired one so I got a ticket for that as well.

Had the first court date adjourned because I did not receive disclosure. I used the Ticketcombat template and faxed it over, they told me I never left a phone number. No surprise there, I figured they want me to pick it up. Gave it to me day of court and asked if I wanted to look it over, I politely declined and said I needed time to review disclosure. I requested in car camera video and typed notes, all I received was written notes and my driving abstract. I made another request for disclosure but haven't heard back from them regarding anything.

I have the court date coming up in 2 weeks and wanted some advice on how to proceed? Should I request disclosure again? This is honestly dragging on for so long now and I don't want to just have to adjourn again.

Thanks in advance.

You usually don't get typed notes on a first request. It's hard to argue you can't read what you haven't seen.

All parties were in the same room when you received your disclosure package. If you needed clarification, it could and would have been provided right then and there. It doesn't take much to know a set of hand written notes aren't legible. If you wanted video, it doesn't take much to see your package doesn't include any. If the disclosure package wasn't to your liking, it should have been brought to attention. You would then make your argument for why you need what you need.

Is there a specific reason you feel there is any video? If it doesn't exist, it obviously wont be provided.

You're the one who is going to be considered wasting the courts time, not the other way around. If you used the ticketcombat template (bloated irrelevant requests and all) and didn't at the very least leave an email address, that's going to be on you. If you wait until you've left the court to make requests for things that could have easily been squared while you were there, that's also going to be on you. Be prepared for an annoyed JP.

Ticketcombat site has not been updated for years. The courts have decided that it is now up to YOU to check if disclosure is ready, and it is not up to the prosecution to have to hunt you down. So if it was ready and you did not check then they will count this first adjourment time delay against you not the prosecution.

As far as fighting the red light ticket, what do the officers notes say? Do they say he saw you go thru a red light? So now it will be officers word against your word that it yellow. Who do you think the JP will believe?

And it sounds like you got two tickets... what was the other ticket?

bend wrote:

You usually don't get typed notes on a first request. It's hard to argue you can't read what you haven't seen.

All parties were in the same room when you received your disclosure package. If you needed clarification, it could and would have been provided right then and there. It doesn't take much to know a set of hand written notes aren't legible. If you wanted video, it doesn't take much to see your package doesn't include any. If the disclosure package wasn't to your liking, it should have been brought to attention. You would then make your argument for why you need what you need.

Is there a specific reason you feel there is any video? If it doesn't exist, it obviously wont be provided.

You're the one who is going to be considered wasting the courts time, not the other way around. If you used the ticketcombat template (bloated irrelevant requests and all) and didn't at the very least leave an email address, that's going to be on you. If you wait until you've left the court to make requests for things that could have easily been squared while you were there, that's also going to be on you. Be prepared for an annoyed JP.

I realize I would get written notes. The disclosure form provided by York Region lacks details on what is to be requested. I followed the Ticketcombat template, not entirely, but as a means to ask for the officers notes and dash cam footage specifically. I asked for an adjournment then reviewed what was in the disclosure package, I never opened it in court. Reviewing the footage would allow me to see where the officer was positioned and possibly light signal timing to back up my case.

jsherk wrote:

Ticketcombat site has not been updated for years. The courts have decided that it is now up to YOU to check if disclosure is ready, and it is not up to the prosecution to have to hunt you down. So if it was ready and you did not check then they will count this first adjourment time delay against you not the prosecution.

As far as fighting the red light ticket, what do the officers notes say? Do they say he saw you go thru a red light? So now it will be officers word against your word that it yellow. Who do you think the JP will believe?

And it sounds like you got two tickets... what was the other ticket?

Yeah I realize that, that's on me. The other ticket was for presenting 2 week old expired insurance slip (new one was behind it and I forgot about it). Is the dash cam of any use if it shows otherwise than provided in the notes, or nothing at all if he was behind a vehicle?

Officers notes:

Traffic stop Dufferin St @ 407 E/B offramp.

-I'm stopped @ light facing E

-Obs lights go grn -> amber -> red. for N/S traf.

After turn red I hear very loud engine rev from sil car in S/B centre lane approx 5 car lengths from lights rapidly accelerate and drive through intersection.

-Stop car (get ID'd)

-Issue PONTS xx HTA 144(18) and xx CAIA 3(1)

-I obs lights after

-work prop for N/S + E/W traffic

-vis cl. NE obs @ time 10-8

So unless you have video (or another eye witness) that will testify that the light was not red when you went thru it, you will most likely lose at trial.

So let's consider some options... Sometimes prosecutors will drop a charge like "fail to have insurance" if you show them the valid one and plead guilty to the other charge. The other thing to consider is that if you can be charged as OWNER of the vehicle instead of DRIVER then the charge does not affect your insurance. So maybe you start by asking if they will drop "no insurance" charge that you would plead guilty to 144(18.1) OWNER charge. It never hurts to ask.

You can't plea to the offence under 144(18.1) as an owner unless there was in fact evidence from a red light camera.

Previously the prosecutor offered to drop the no insurance charge for a guilty plea. Any conviction hurts the record but what is the least harmful plea offer in a situation like this that can be negotiated?

I called the prosecutor's office and they told me that I did not receive dash cam footage because O.P.P. vehicles do not have them? Seems strange but I'm out of luck.

So if you go to trial then they will want to charge you with both and that will be two MINOR charges against your insurance.

If you take the plea, then you will only have the one MINOR charge.

Tickets like this are very very hard to beat because it is basically your word against the officers. So with no video evidence and no other witnesses you are most likely going to lose. You can certainly hope the officer does not show up, but that is very rare these days. Do you have a chance at a charter argument for lack of disclosure or for time delays? Does not sound like those are options either.

So the odds of you winning against either ticket appear to be slim to none. So you can fight it for the experience and take the two guilty convictions, or take the deal and only end up with one guilty conviction. If you agree to take the plea, ask if the prosecutor will change the charge to be against the OWNER not the DRIVER. They or may not agree, but if they do agree then the OWNER charge will not count against insurance.

Definitely not taking on two guilty convictions. I have a clean record and will most likely have to agree to some plea as there's no video.

I was under the impression this was a major offense. Are there any other resolution options? Is fail to yield worse better or worse than being charged as an "owner"?

Well you had better check with your insurance company on the status (Minor, Major, Serious) of each charge. Obviously minor charges are preferred.

If you can get a charge changed to OWNER instead of as DRIVER, then it does NOT affect your insurance at all, and there are NO demerit points. Only charges to DRIVER incur demerits and insurance increases.

syxoi38 wrote:

I was under the impression this was a major offense.

It most likely wont. Basic disobeying of traffic signs and signals are minor. Special circumstances involving kids, schools, etc will make it a major. Same goes for speeding, passing, etc.

e.g. Not stopping for a stop sign is a minor. Put that stop sign on a school bus and pass improperly and it's a major.

So I had to go to court to bring a motion to adjourn the trial because I cannot attend next week. At my first trial I received a plea deal but due to no disclosure I declined and adjourned. This time the prosecutor brought up the fact a deal was offered the first trial and proceeded to offereme the same deal. It was failure to yield and my insurance ticket would be dropped. I asked if he could change failure to yield to be charged as an owner for the red light as mentioned by jsherk - he told he could, but he won't; flat out refused. He emphasized that by me receiving my disclosure and declining the plea deal again that I cannot receive any deal at my rescheduled trial. Is this true? I figured it was an intimidation tactic to pressure me so he gets the win then and there, but considering the first plea was moot as I had no disclosure, does this count as a "second offer" and no future offers would be made? He noted down everything and emphasized those points before the court. I only came with the intention to bring forward the motion and reschedule my trial, I didn't even know that a resolution could be made during that trial. I know he is a prosector but damn he was really hard on me after I brought up the possibility of being charged as an owner.

The prosecutor doesn't have to offer anything at anytime. They do it to sometimes to streamline the court docket. Ie offering someone a reduced fine or dropping one ticket for a plea on another

Plea deals are completely optional and the prosecutor has no obligation to offer them to you at all. They also have no obligation to offer you a deal again that they offered you before. If you get it adjourned a third time, it is still completely up to the prosecutor whether they offer you another deal or not. They can also change the deal they are offering as well, so they could make it better, worse or withdraw it completely.

It is a bit of an intimidation tactic in one sense, but they don't have to offer you anything in the first place, so really it is more of a way for them to get a quick guilty plea without taking up much court time.