Hi folks. Few days ago the police put me a ticket for Disobeying a Stop Sign 136 (1) (a) in Thornhill Woods. I'm quite sure I did stop but the police told me they have me recorded. So i requested the disclosure and I got their notes and a video. There are a couple of inconsistencies here: 1) The notes indicate: In Car Camera Footage of Offense Captured (Yes) 2) The video provided with the disclosure just shows when they stopped me 2 blocks away... and actually I can hear the office saying they have a video of the offense. 3) Notes indicate: Number of Occupants (1). However there were 3 persons in the car. 4) Looking at the video, you can easily determine there were at least 2 people in the car as you can see the heads moving. A couple of questions for you guys: 1) How should I proceed with the video that was not provided and that according to the notes do exist? Should I ask for the disclosure again? 2) Can I say that to the JP that, if the police were unable to notice there were 3 occupants... then how can they assure from 30m that my rims did not stop? 3) If the video of the offence does not exist? Can I say the cop is lying when tells me they have a recording? If they are lying with that, how can I be sure they are not lying with the offense? Thank you very much and happy holidays for everyone.
Hi folks.
Few days ago the police put me a ticket for Disobeying a Stop Sign 136 (1) (a) in Thornhill Woods.
I'm quite sure I did stop but the police told me they have me recorded.
So i requested the disclosure and I got their notes and a video.
There are a couple of inconsistencies here:
1) The notes indicate: In Car Camera Footage of Offense Captured (Yes)
2) The video provided with the disclosure just shows when they stopped me 2 blocks away... and actually I can hear the office saying they have a video of the offense.
3) Notes indicate: Number of Occupants (1). However there were 3 persons in the car.
4) Looking at the video, you can easily determine there were at least 2 people in the car as you can see the heads moving.
A couple of questions for you guys:
1) How should I proceed with the video that was not provided and that according to the notes do exist? Should I ask for the disclosure again?
2) Can I say that to the JP that, if the police were unable to notice there were 3 occupants... then how can they assure from 30m that my rims did not stop?
3) If the video of the offence does not exist? Can I say the cop is lying when tells me they have a recording? If they are lying with that, how can I be sure they are not lying with the offense?
Thank you very much and happy holidays for everyone.
I would make another request and specifically for the video of the offense itself as the officer even admits that there is video of it. You can ask the officer how many occupants (1 per notes) and then point out there are three heads in the video. This will not win the ticket for you, but just as a very little bit of weight against the officer. On its own it is not enough. But your question would be good... "So you say you saw 1 occupant in the vehicle from less than 10 meters away, but clearly there are 3. So is it possible that your observation of the rims not stopping, viewed from 30 meters away, is also inaccurate?"
I would make another request and specifically for the video of the offense itself as the officer even admits that there is video of it.
You can ask the officer how many occupants (1 per notes) and then point out there are three heads in the video. This will not win the ticket for you, but just as a very little bit of weight against the officer. On its own it is not enough. But your question would be good... "So you say you saw 1 occupant in the vehicle from less than 10 meters away, but clearly there are 3. So is it possible that your observation of the rims not stopping, viewed from 30 meters away, is also inaccurate?"
As Jeff suggested, contact the prosecutor's office in writing again and ask for clarification as to whether there is video of you committing the act itself---not after the fact. If there's no additional video, then use what you have to discredit the officer. After all, if the officer's notes say there was only 1 person in the car, but the video shows more than that it will clearly call in to question his observations of whether you stopped or not. After all, he would have been up close to your vehicle and spoken to you to give you the ticket. So, how can he make such a big mistake as to the number of occupants when he is right up to you, but be believed that you stopped from a much greater distance! Plus, if the video DOES have audio of him saying he got you on video not stopping, then it once again, will challenge his credibility since you'll have the reply from the prosecutor's office saying there isn't any such additional video. It just makes the officer seem less credible. Bottom line: it doesn't mean your case is a slam dunk necessarily, but it certainly WILL challenge the officer's credibility and potentially be enough to create reasonable doubt.
As Jeff suggested, contact the prosecutor's office in writing again and ask for clarification as to whether there is video of you committing the act itself---not after the fact. If there's no additional video, then use what you have to discredit the officer. After all, if the officer's notes say there was only 1 person in the car, but the video shows more than that it will clearly call in to question his observations of whether you stopped or not. After all, he would have been up close to your vehicle and spoken to you to give you the ticket. So, how can he make such a big mistake as to the number of occupants when he is right up to you, but be believed that you stopped from a much greater distance!
Plus, if the video DOES have audio of him saying he got you on video not stopping, then it once again, will challenge his credibility since you'll have the reply from the prosecutor's office saying there isn't any such additional video. It just makes the officer seem less credible.
Bottom line: it doesn't mean your case is a slam dunk necessarily, but it certainly WILL challenge the officer's credibility and potentially be enough to create reasonable doubt.
And if you have never been to court before, you might want to read this thread http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic7039.html so you understand what we mean by cross-examination and a little how to do it.
I got a ticket this morning while driving my sons to school. The officer said I only slowed down but didn't stop at the intersection. However I did stop because the intersection is a block from the school and there was a crossing guard there to help the students cross the road. The crossing guard at the time was helping some students crossing the road along the direction I was going. I also saw the officer parked on my right at the intersection. I came to a complete stop and it was clear for me to proceed. At that time no other car at the intersection and no one crossing the road in front of me. Then the officer came after me. My oldest son age 10 told me that he saw me stopped at the intersection. Can I use my son as a witness when I dispute the charge? Will the judge take my son as a credible witness?
I got a ticket this morning while driving my sons to school. The officer said I only slowed down but didn't stop at the intersection. However I did stop because the intersection is a block from the school and there was a crossing guard there to help the students cross the road. The crossing guard at the time was helping some students crossing the road along the direction I was going. I also saw the officer parked on my right at the intersection. I came to a complete stop and it was clear for me to proceed. At that time no other car at the intersection and no one crossing the road in front of me. Then the officer came after me. My oldest son age 10 told me that he saw me stopped at the intersection. Can I use my son as a witness when I dispute the charge? Will the judge take my son as a credible witness?
From the Ontario Evidence Act https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90e23 Presumption of competency 18. (1) A person of any age is presumed to be competent to give evidence. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1). Challenge, examination (2) When a persons competence is challenged, the judge, justice or other presiding officer shall examine the person. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1). Exception (3) However, if the judge, justice or other presiding officer is of the opinion that the persons ability to give evidence might be adversely affected if he or she examined the person, the person may be examined by counsel instead. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1). Evidence of witness under 14 18.1 (1) When the competence of a proposed witness who is a person under the age of 14 is challenged, the court may admit the persons evidence if the person is able to communicate the evidence, understands the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation and testifies under oath or solemn affirmation. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1). Same (2) The court may admit the persons evidence, if the person is able to communicate the evidence, even though the person does not understand the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation, if the person understands what it means to tell the truth and promises to tell the truth. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1). Further discretion (3) If the court is of the opinion that the persons evidence is sufficiently reliable, the court has discretion to admit it, if the person is able to communicate the evidence, even if the person understands neither the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation nor what it means to tell the truth.
18. (1) A person of any age is presumed to be competent to give evidence. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1).
Challenge, examination
(2) When a persons competence is challenged, the judge, justice or other presiding officer shall examine the person. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1).
Exception
(3) However, if the judge, justice or other presiding officer is of the opinion that the persons ability to give evidence might be adversely affected if he or she examined the person, the person may be examined by counsel instead. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1).
Evidence of witness under 14
18.1 (1) When the competence of a proposed witness who is a person under the age of 14 is challenged, the court may admit the persons evidence if the person is able to communicate the evidence, understands the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation and testifies under oath or solemn affirmation. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1).
Same
(2) The court may admit the persons evidence, if the person is able to communicate the evidence, even though the person does not understand the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation, if the person understands what it means to tell the truth and promises to tell the truth. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (1).
Further discretion
(3) If the court is of the opinion that the persons evidence is sufficiently reliable, the court has discretion to admit it, if the person is able to communicate the evidence, even if the person understands neither the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation nor what it means to tell the truth.
I requested the evidence showing the offense and they simply told me that what I got is what they have. One of the prosecutors there heard my conversation and came to make a deal. He checked the videos and he says there is nothing else... and offered to reduce one demerit point... thing that I completely rejected because I consider I am not guilty. All this was verbal as I was not allowed to request the evidence again. How should I proceed? Should I sent a formal letter requesting the video again? Or having a video of the police office saying to me that he verified the video of the offense should be enough to disqualify him? Thanks.
I requested the evidence showing the offense and they simply told me that what I got is what they have. One of the prosecutors there heard my conversation and came to make a deal. He checked the videos and he says there is nothing else... and offered to reduce one demerit point... thing that I completely rejected because I consider I am not guilty.
All this was verbal as I was not allowed to request the evidence again.
How should I proceed? Should I sent a formal letter requesting the video again?
Or having a video of the police office saying to me that he verified the video of the offense should be enough to disqualify him?
Always ask in writing. But if the prosecutor says there is no video, then you most likely will not get it. During cross-examination of the officer you can ask "Why did you tell me you looked at video of incident?" If he answers that there is NO video then you can say "So you lied to me about that?" Your goal here would be to discredit the officer some what. However, even if the officer admits to lying about the video (they are legally allowed to do that) it may not be enough to get the charge dropped. But along with your testimony and your sons testimony it will definitely help. If he says that there IS video then you can say to the JP "On the record I want to say that I requested the video from the prosecution X number of times and they told me there was not any. I have an issue that they did not disclose everything to me and think there should be a mistrial and the charge dropped."
Always ask in writing. But if the prosecutor says there is no video, then you most likely will not get it.
During cross-examination of the officer you can ask "Why did you tell me you looked at video of incident?"
If he answers that there is NO video then you can say "So you lied to me about that?" Your goal here would be to discredit the officer some what. However, even if the officer admits to lying about the video (they are legally allowed to do that) it may not be enough to get the charge dropped. But along with your testimony and your sons testimony it will definitely help.
If he says that there IS video then you can say to the JP "On the record I want to say that I requested the video from the prosecution X number of times and they told me there was not any. I have an issue that they did not disclose everything to me and think there should be a mistrial and the charge dropped."
Actually, that's an improper question since it presupposes that the officer made the statement. If the prosecutor is on their game, they should object and the JP should sustain it (Assumes facts not in evidence). The problem with the question is that you are already claiming that the statement was made to you and are simply asking him for his motive for the statement; not whether the statement was actually made! Rather, the proper question (as per a long-standing common law evidence rule) is that you first 'put the statement to the witness'. So, the proper question should be "Did you tell me that you looked at a video of the incident?" If he answers positively, now you can examine on it-----if he disputes the statement then you must move on----the witness has answered the question and not adapted the statement. The only way to introduce that statement now is for YOU to either introduce it from another witness who heard it----(likely YOU by taking the stand) and/or some written/audio/video evidence corroborating it was made. While some JP's don't quite understand the complexities of evidence law and let a lot of things slide, some ARE very knowledgeable and won't simply allow you to challenge a witness on a 'hypothetical' statement that has not been adapted as evidence.
jsherk wrote:
Always ask in writing. But if the prosecutor says there is no video, then you most likely will not get it.
During cross-examination of the officer you can ask "Why did you tell me you looked at video of incident?"
If he answers that there is NO video then you can say "So you lied to me about that?" Your goal here would be to discredit the officer some what. However, even if the officer admits to lying about the video (they are legally allowed to do that) it may not be enough to get the charge dropped. But along with your testimony and your sons testimony it will definitely help.
If he says that there IS video then you can say to the JP "On the record I want to say that I requested the video from the prosecution X number of times and they told me there was not any. I have an issue that they did not disclose everything to me and think there should be a mistrial and the charge dropped."
Actually, that's an improper question since it presupposes that the officer made the statement. If the prosecutor is on their game, they should object and the JP should sustain it (Assumes facts not in evidence). The problem with the question is that you are already claiming that the statement was made to you and are simply asking him for his motive for the statement; not whether the statement was actually made!
Rather, the proper question (as per a long-standing common law evidence rule) is that you first 'put the statement to the witness'. So, the proper question should be "Did you tell me that you looked at a video of the incident?" If he answers positively, now you can examine on it-----if he disputes the statement then you must move on----the witness has answered the question and not adapted the statement. The only way to introduce that statement now is for YOU to either introduce it from another witness who heard it----(likely YOU by taking the stand) and/or some written/audio/video evidence corroborating it was made.
While some JP's don't quite understand the complexities of evidence law and let a lot of things slide, some ARE very knowledgeable and won't simply allow you to challenge a witness on a 'hypothetical' statement that has not been adapted as evidence.
I have received a $450 ticket for parking in a handicap loading zone. I did not see the sign and the pavement was not marked. I have lived in Toronto for 15 years and this is the first ticket of any kind I have received. My last ticket, in a different city, was over 20 years ago. I am always very careful about parking and traffic regulations.
I cannot afford to pay $450. I do not make a lot of…
Petition to change HTA 136 (1)(A)Failure to Stop at Stop Sign
Hello, it does not seem right that not coming to a complete stop, that your wheels do not stop turning or rolling stop carries the same penalty as not stopping at all at a stop sign . I think it's time this laws challenged and quashed. I wondered how to go both that? Can we start a website that we can sign a petition to have this law…
My 78 year old Mother got a ticket at 8am on March 31/09 as the morning sun was in her eyes and she (as well, many others), didnt see the sign ahead-"No straight throughway (between 7-9am Mon to Fri". (All english Sign might I add) at Dundas & Shaw. (**Proceed Contrary Sign Intersection -HTA-144(9).
4 months prior to her court date in November, I requested disclosure 3 times prior to her…
Reference is made in the HTA to Stop Signs at Railway Crossings (passive crossings):
HTA, 163 (2)
O Reg 615 (7)
However I cannot find specific regulation detailing how a railway crossing controlled by a stop sign must be configured.
The Ontario Traffic Manual, Book 11 - Markings and Delineation under section "3.9 Reserved Facility Markings - Railways" (p99) speaks to the needs for marking, but is…
I got a parking ticket on Halloween around 9pm for parking in front of a cross walk in a residential street. There's no sign or anything that says you can't park there.
You know the crosswalk/walkways in residential streets that are fenced on both sides and that simply lead you to another street on the other side is what I'm talking about.
The parking ticket officer must have seen me walk in…
So I was on my way home, going a solid 120 as usual in the fast lane. Someone decides to cut me off going less than 100. I do a quick double lane change and speed up unknowingly hitting apparently 150. After speeding for a mere 20 seconds, I am pulled over. Cop says he reduced the ticket to 49 over, I was charged $359 for that. Of course, my insurance isn't in my car... I had to take it out…
Hi, new at this and could use all the help and guidance..
My brother just got in an accident where he swerved to avoid hitting a squirrel and got in an accident. Luckily, no one was hurt as he did not hit another party so it was just our car (old car and it will be a write off). The cop issued a careless driving ticket - notice of appearance. I read a similiar thread about this but not sure if it…
There is some construction going on for the last three months and hence, the northbound right lane on airport road at queen street which exits is closed due to construction and they have put barriers. they have put the right turn sign on the adjacent lane in the black background. Also the right lane north of Queen Street at Airport road is closed and they have an arrow sign there which indicates…
I keep being told that if you are found to be driving with bare feet, you could be fined etc... but nowhere can I find the actual rule anyway. Does anyone know if this is truly illegal - or perhaps used to be? In summer, sandals being what they are, its much safer, in my opinion to kick them off and drive with bare feet.... but then I hate anything on my feet in hot weather!
I got pulled over yesterday on the Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway in Ottawa for going 106 km/h in a 60 zone. It was around noon, the weather was good and I was the only car on the road. He was hiding around a corner and was just stopped in the right lane (there are no shoulders on this road). I was alone in my car and neither of us said much, he didnt reduce my fine and gave me a ticket of a set…
I recently received a ticket from a military policeman on a military base in Ontario. Therefore, I was charged under the "Government Property Traffic Regulations" (GPTR), section 9. I know that some may say, why are you posting on a website for the HTA? Well, in Ontario, the military uses the Provincial Offences Act/Ontario Court of Justice for traffic tickets issued on a military base, i.e.…
For my first ever post, I'm going to ask for your own story dealing with a s.172 charge.
There is a lot of teeth grinding online about the street racing laws but few hands-on accounts from people who have been there and done that. I saw many posts from people seeking advice but few mention the actual outcome.
With about 1/3 conviction rate, there should be many success stories around. Even if you we…
... two cars pulled over, we (my wife and 7 month old boy) were passing a truck in the passing lane, first car passed me and I pulled out behind him. Crested a hill while on a curve, pass the truck and move back into the driving lane. Police officer shows up behind and pulls us both over. Gave me a ticket saying I was following the car in front doing 124km/hr.
We all know that numerous police agencies around Ontario (and world for that matter) set up speed traps in inconspicuous locations to catch motorists who are speeding.
If you know of any speed traps that are in regular use please post them here for all to know and avoid speeding fines.
Format: Town, Location, Direction, known days of operation (if known).
Sorry if this has been covered, but I searched and didn't find anything.
Just thought I'd share my recent experience.
Last Friday I was driving myself and my wife home from a nice dinner date in Markham/Richmond Hill north of T-DOT, and I had two (what looked like) ETF officers "tail" me home and park on my driveway.
I had been driving southbound and reached a red light stopped in the right…
I have my trial date coming up next week. I got a ticket in North Bay, ON for driving 139km/h on a 90km/h. He was using a Genesis II directional radar. Tested it before and after the stop according to the notes. In his notes, he mentions the speeds that were displayed on the radar which were 140, 141, and 139. In his notes, he also mentions that the color of my car was blue when it is…
I paid my fines for 2 tickets; fail to provide ownership and fail to provide insurence. I now know i should have checked not guilty and mailed them in.
(the papers were in the car. I was looking for them but was distracted by a badgering 2nd officer who was attempting to identify my passenger. I found them when i stopped for coffee later.)
Now that you actually opened this topic and I have your attention
Please read all items below 1 to 8
1) If YOU start a THREAD/DISCUSSION for an incident - KEEP on ONE THREAD, even for no activity for several months or even just to keep updates for court steps, stay on one thread
HOW DO I FIND MY POST? >> TOP right of page is the following: view unread posts / view new posts / view…
I plan to request disclosure through registered mail or fax. I've tried requesting in person but got rejected because they told me I did not provide sufficient information on my Disclosure Request letter.
My question is, do they really need the officer's name and division when I provided them with the Offence Number, Offence Date, Charge, Court Date, and Location? Also they said they do…
Been charged with Careless Driving in a residential area.
1. The Officer has a Witness statement. If the Witness does not appear at Trail, can that statement be introduced at Trial by the Crown and used against me.?
2. The Address "Number" (the Street is correct) on the infraction does not remotely exist, is an empty field. Does this matter?
Is there a requirement for commercial vehicles to be maintained only by licensed mechanics (e.g., oil changes, tire rotations)? I'm working with Habitat for Humanity and we are looking into a cargo van for the ReStore; I'm more than capable of doing maintenance but I'm not sure if it is legal because I am not a licensed mechanic.
which I had not search.
Now that you actually opened this topic and I have your attention 