Red/amber light

My wife was given a ticket for not stopping a red light, but, actually it was still amber when she crossed the intersection from the off ramp w/b 401 at Leslie St. Toronto.

She was going/turning s/b to Leslie St. and it was very clear to her that it was still amber and she was under the situation where if she tried to stop on the stop line, she will end up stopping in the middle of the intersection. There was also a delivery truck ahead of her, just few seconds away who crossed the amber light too.

We have asked a disclosure already and the Police's version was that she observed the signal turn amber & then red. When the light turned red my wife's car was apprx. 2 car lenght east of the intersection.

Please give us some input how are we going to depend our stand that it was still amber and in my wife's judgement it was safe to proceed as there was also another vehicle ahead. We would greatly appreciate any help that everyone can express on this issue... THANKS!!!!

It looks like a case where your wife words against the cop's words, the JP will decide who is to beleive after hearing both stories, if your wife takes the stand and stay firm, who knows she can convince the JP.

But trial is the last thing you want. I understand you already got disclosure, did you explore other option like charter defence,? or ask for delay on the trial date with a good excuse (if the cop shows up) to throw off the cop schedule so she won't show up

What does charter defence mean? Any idea what a good excuse for a delay?

Any help will be much appreciated as the schedule for this was on Oct. 9/09.

THanks!

dfernandz wrote:

What does charter defence mean? Any idea what a good excuse for a delay?

Any help will be much appreciated as the schedule for this was on Oct. 9/09.

THanks!

What was the offence date?

If the first trial date is more than 10 months (+/-) from the offence date you can file form 4F to ask for a stay due to unreasonable delay. The longer the delay (>10) the better chance of success.

Visit www.ticketcombat.com for more details. His site also tells you how to delay the trial. But remember if you are the cause of the delay, you weaken you charter defence

Offence Date was Nov. 19, 2008 and the Trial is on Oct. 9, 2009.

Do we have to write them requesting for a speedy trial or we will just file a 4F? What does (+/-) from the offence date? Where do we get the 4F form?

Thanks "liveontheedge" for all your responses!

+/- = approximately

You're just over 10 months, so you have a chance but it's very slim. These days, you have to catch the JP on the day when he won the lottery to get an 11b out for anything under 15 months in Toronto.

Read through the ticketcombat site and it'll clarify quite a few of these things for you.

Firestart is right, delay just over 10 months may not be enough for a strong case.

Is there anything in the disclosure that is not proper you can think of?

If there is then you can request more disclosure such that the cop can not give it to you therefore give rise to "improper disclosure" which couples with 10+ delay to make it a stronger case.

Thanks all guys for your input. I will try to look something in the disclosure, but the one they only sent me was the officer's handwritten note and it was a photo copy, so, you can't understand some of the words. Can I request for a typewritten notes of the officer? Also they sent the copy of the offence notice only one side, but, on my request I ask for both sides of the offence notice.

You should be able to do it. In writing, hand deliver your request and have the clerk sign/stamp your request. If they try to unload it on you in court, refuse to accept it and raise a stink with the JP.

By the way, there were two policemen in this incident. Could the other one be a witness? It was not mentioned in the officer's note. If he was a witness then he should also disclose what he had observed.

If we can't find any other option of delaying the trial, my wife is willing to stand by her account of the incident that it was still amber when she crossed the white line. According to the officer, my wife's car was approximately 2 car length east of the intersection when the light turn red. Does this mean 2 car length before the white line? I am asking this because there was a delivery truck ahead of my wife's car that she was following, maybe a car space between them. So, if this was her observation the truck cross the intersection also on red light. Can we ask why she did not stop the truck? She said in her report, when my wife's car entered the intersection the light she was facing turned green that was the time she stopped my wife ( not after she made a u-turn). So, she did not stop the truck because she can't make a u-turn on red???

dfernandz wrote:

By the way, there were two policemen in this incident. Could the other one be a witness? It was not mentioned in the officer's note. If he was a witness then he should also disclose what he had observed.

If we can't find any other option of delaying the trial, my wife is willing to stand by her account of the incident that it was still amber when she crossed the white line. According to the officer, my wife's car was approximately 2 car length east of the intersection when the light turn red. Does this mean 2 car length before the white line? I am asking this because there was a delivery truck ahead of my wife's car that she was following, maybe a car space between them. So, if this was her observation the truck cross the intersection also on red light. Can we ask why she did not stop the truck? She said in her report, when my wife's car entered the intersection the light she was facing turned green that was the time she stopped my wife ( not after she made a u-turn). So, she did not stop the truck because she can't make a u-turn on red???

Are you saying that the cop's car on Leslie northbound was waiting for a green at the intersection then made a U turn to south bound of Leslie, followed your wife and stopped her at some point later on Leslie?

I remember reading a case (put up by ticketcombat) similar like your situation and the judge dismissed the charge against the defendant.

If i remember his ruling was the cop took his eyes off the defendant's car to look at the traffic light, but off course there were other evidences into play. I'll put it up for you if i find the link.

As to the other cop, you can suppenoa him to be a witness but i doubt he would have any usefull info for your defence.

About the truck, you view it as relevant to your defence, from the cop's perspective it's not relevant to her at all.

I expect the cop, when asked about the truck, would say somehing like "i don't recall there was a truck before your car. Even if there was, the truck was not a subject to my observation"

Here it is, R. v. Sandhu:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... ncj77.html

You are absolutely right.

I will try to read that case later as I have to go to work today. If there is any significant defence that you can share with this issue from that case please tell me in what way as I am not that experienced on this kind of matter,

Thank you very much again.

liveontheedge wrote:

Here it is, R. v. Sandhu:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... ncj77.html

Very interesting decision. So the officer's word alone is not necessarily enough to win a conviction.

yes, interesting to see. Guess even more reason to have red light cameras at every light. And another reason not to "jump" on a green, as someone is probably coming thru a red.

Only part is that the guy admitted to "accelerating" on a yellow.....which is contrary to slow down and proceed with caution.

hwybear wrote:

yes, interesting to see. Guess even more reason to have red light cameras at every light. And another reason not to "jump" on a green, as someone is probably coming thru a red.

Only part is that the guy admitted to "accelerating" on a yellow.....which is contrary to slow down and proceed with caution.

The issue in front of the Judge was "run the red" not "accel on yellow", yeah the guy got off.

How could you prove an offence "accel on yellow" unless you have 2 readings on Laser and capture the yellow at the same time.

hwybear wrote:

yes, interesting to see. Guess even more reason to have red light cameras at every light. And another reason not to "jump" on a green, as someone is probably coming thru a red.

Only part is that the guy admitted to "accelerating" on a yellow.....which is contrary to slow down and proceed with caution.

Yeah, but if you slow down and proceed with caution, then

A. You end up being too slow and get the red light ticket.

B. Someone jumps on green and plows into your car.

lose-lose law.

Well, the law doesn't actually say "slow down". You are supposed to stop if you can do so safely, otherwise just "proceed with caution". I would think that maintaining your speed, coasting through, or slowing down would all qualify as "proceed with caution" under the proper circumstances (e.g., maintaining speed through a busy downtown intersection with pedestrians all around may not be proceeding with caution). However, I find it hard to argue that speeding up on an amber is proceeding with caution.