Hey folks. I just picked up the disclosure for my traffic ticket (I know this is from Ontario, I am from Ontario-but live in Saskatchewan now.. hope it's alright, I plan to move back someday) On the disclosure, the ticket cites (in almost impossible to understand handwriting, I still can't make out some of his words) two infactions for failing to properly stop, but only one ticket. I asked the court officer today at the police station which infraction he intends to prosecute, and he said the second one- which we can "prove" occurred. He does have a video, the first one imo, which is from a considerable distance away, shows headlights and a probable stop sign violation, though a couple seconds is obstructed completely by a passing vehicle at the time my vehicle was approaching the intersection (which has a stop sign about 7 metres from the highway) on a grid road. The second alledged infraction, occurred aprox. 5 seconds after the first. It shows the officer speedily approaching my vehicle from behind, accelerating while I came to a near complete stop. The video evidence clearly reflects a full intention and near completion of a stop. My arguement on that one, which I believe the crown intends to prosecute, is that I believed the vehicle behind me was an aggressive, possibly intoxicated driver. Who accelerates towards a stop vehicle at an intersection? The officer does not put his lights on until after I proceed past the stop sign. It's a daunting and intimidating experience to have a large suv accelerate at a close distance while your vehicle is stopped in the darkest of nights. A reasonable person, which I hope the judge is, would clearly see my case here without doubt. So in a nutshell folks, can anyone please tell me how to go abouts defending myself when it's unclear on the ticket which alleged infraction I'm being prosecuted for? If the video, which shows both potential violations, is used to prosecute the 2nd offense, could they use the first alleged offense which is not being prosecuted as collective evidence in the second? Can the officer/crown chose at the time of the court trial, which of the two infractions the court intends to prosecute? Could they argue I violated two stop signs, which were both mentioned on the ticket and shown in the video, but the officer was a nice guy and only issued one actual fine? Either way, it seems it would be my legal prerogative to know which of the two alleged offences the court intends to prosecute. I'm not a legal expert, but it seems they should have to define which infraction, clearly, I am being prosecuted for. I intend to ask for an adjournment if the ticketing officer shows up, to give myself more time to prepare for the trial, as I am unsure which infraction to defend myself from. I also cannot understand what the ticketing officer wrote, the chicken scratch writing is not legible. I also believe the crown (the court officer) believes he has the case in a nutshell. He informed me "this is the video" we will be showing, which is clear evidence. I beg the differ. My hope is that he believes the evidence is "so clear," that the ticketing officer does not make an attempt to show up in court. Thanks
Hmm, that's interesting. In Ontario, our Provincial Offences Act makes no reference to the Criminal Code, except to say that it replaces the summary conviction procedures in the Criminal Code: "The purpose of this Act is to replace the summary conviction procedure for the prosecution of provincial offences, including the provisions adopted by reference to the Criminal Code (Canada), with a procedure that reflects the distinction between provincial offences and criminal offences." (Provincial Offences Act (Ontario), section 2(1)). But for Saskatchewan, it seems that the summary conviction procedures from the Criminal Code do apply in combination with your province's Summary Offences Procedure Act: "Subject to this Act, any other Act or any regulation, proceedings to enforce an Act, regulation or bylaw by fine, penalty or imprisonment may be brought summarily before a justice under the summary conviction provisions of the Criminal Code, as amended from time to time." (Section 4(1)) Since there is a different legislative framework between our two provinces, I can only really comment about how it works in Ontario.
Hmm, that's interesting. In Ontario, our Provincial Offences Act makes no reference to the Criminal Code, except to say that it replaces the summary conviction procedures in the Criminal Code: "The purpose of this Act is to replace the summary conviction procedure for the prosecution of provincial offences, including the provisions adopted by reference to the Criminal Code (Canada), with a procedure that reflects the distinction between provincial offences and criminal offences." (Provincial Offences Act (Ontario), section 2(1)).
But for Saskatchewan, it seems that the summary conviction procedures from the Criminal Code do apply in combination with your province's Summary Offences Procedure Act: "Subject to this Act, any other Act or any regulation, proceedings to enforce an Act, regulation or bylaw by fine, penalty or imprisonment may be brought summarily before a justice under the summary conviction provisions of the Criminal Code, as amended from time to time." (Section 4(1))
Since there is a different legislative framework between our two provinces, I can only really comment about how it works in Ontario.
I got a speeding ticket on the 401 by Cornwall. The officer said I was going 140 initially then dropped it to 130 (for the record I don't believe for a second I was going 140, that's way faster than I would ever intentionally drive). I filled out the info on the back of the notice to request a…
I was recently charged with stunt driving on a 60kmh road. When I was pulled over, the officer told me I was going almost 100kmh (still 40kmh above the limit) but was charging me for stunt driving because I accelerated quickly from an intersection on an empty road (in a straight line). I know…
what to do about a an illegal right turn onto steeles from staines rd
got the ticket around october of last year
put it to trial
so there is a big mess of cars at this intersection and I see a cop outside standing directing traffic with a huge row of cars pulled over to the side, through…
Are any non-domestic vehicles "pursuit-rated" in North America? Also have the Michigan State Police (this is relevant because apparently they have the most accepted selection/testing process) tested any of them to see if they meet their criteria? Just curious...
Ottawa, Canada (AHN) - Beginning Tuesday, or April Fool's Day 2008, fines on Quebec drivers caught overspeeding will be doubled. It is not only the money penalty that will go up, but also demerit points.
The new law, Bill 42, is similar to Ontario's street racing rule. It stipulates fines for…
A friend got a ticket Jan. 9th of this year for doing 110 kph in a 90 kph zone, so 20 over.
What should the set fine and total payable read?
It's confusing to me, as the prescribed fine under HTA s.128 is different than the set fine enumerated by the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice.
An OPP officer ticketed me claiming I was going 40km/h over the limit (140km/km) on my way home with a few friends on the 401. This is my first ever speeding offense. Although I am sure I was over the limit, I am almost certain that I was not going 40 over, more realistically closer to 30 over. The…
Yesterday night I was charged for stunt driving (excess over 50km/h) and I have a few inquiries. I'm sure you've all heard the same story, but the unmarked cop in an SUV was tailing me for a good 2-3 minutes as I was travelling 120~135 km/h. Then as he came close I decided to boot it up…
I had a speeding ticket in May 2013 which brought me to 9 demerit points out of 15. I received a letter and had to attend an interview. Due to a history of speeding tickets and a previous interview a few years prior, the interviewer decided to put me on zero tolerance for a year. Meaning if I…
