No written notes only In car camera from police

Received Disclosure

Police has NO written notes- Only has In Car Camera (copy of video )

Is the case over since Police has no written notes?

Police also provide a detail typed description based on the video

Is police allow to read the typed description?

Should I object to police reading or referring to the typed description?

Can I ask question about the video before Court shows it?

The Court is New Market- How do I show my dash cam video?

Should I bring a copy of the DVD or memory stick? Should I bring my own computer too?

Thanks

What is the charge (wording and section number)?

What is different from your dashcam video and their video?

My guess is that you received a new e-ticket (printed ticket versus hand written) where the officer typed their notes at the time of the offence instead of writing them out by hand.

If that's the case, they're considered the same as hand written notes in Court and the officer will be allowed to use them on the stand. E-notes should have a date and time stamp showing when they were made, which should be around the time of the offence.

jsherk wrote:

What is the charge (wording and section number)?

What is different from your dashcam video and their video?

136(1)a

Police video was from a different angle

My video showed there was a cement truck blocking the stop sign and I was not able to see the stop sign

until I was less than 60 metres from the intersection

Police mentioned the markings/ stop line on the ground 4 times in the type narrative-

Police video did not show any markings/stop line

My video shows there were NO markings or stop line.

Prosecution office confirmed that there are "No written notes"

Stanton wrote:

My guess is that you received a new e-ticket (printed ticket versus hand written) where the officer typed their notes at the time of the offence instead of writing them out by hand.

If that's the case, they're considered the same as hand written notes in Court and the officer will be allowed to use them on the stand. E-notes should have a date and time stamp showing when they were made, which should be around the time of the offence.

News to me

The time stamped was about 2 minues after Police returned to the cruiser and he returned to me within 2 minutes after the time stamped

Can he types over 250 words within that time frame while checking my licence and other things?

The DVD provided also shown that certain files were created after I requested disclosure- 5 months after the ticket

So did you drive right on thru the stop sign without even slowing down because you did not see it, or did you slow down and almost stop but roll thru?

The reason I ask is that if you did not stop because you did not see it then the cement truck thing would be good and you need to find the law/regulation about the 60metres. However if you slowed down and almost stopped but rolled thru you will have a hard time convincing the JP that you did not see the sign because of the obstruction.

Can you scan and post the ticket and notes you have (with personal/officer info blanked out)?

Thanks

jsherk wrote:

So did you drive right on thru the stop sign without even slowing down because you did not see it, or did you slow down and almost stop but roll thru?

The reason I ask is that if you did not stop because you did not see it then the cement truck thing would be good and you need to find the law/regulation about the 60metres. However if you slowed down and almost stopped but rolled thru you will have a hard time convincing the JP that you did not see the sign because of the obstruction.

Can you scan and post the ticket and notes you have (with personal/officer info blanked out)?

Thanks

The cement truck was rolling and there was an orange plastic cone placed near the driver side.

I was watching out if the driver or any workers may be dashing out to the road

In fact, there were 4 construction workers. 3 on the sidewalk and one was on the road just in front of the cement truck.

The 60 metres rule is HTA45

I checked with City of Markham- there are no by-laws for the stop sign. contrary to HTA 137

The stop signs were built by the developer contrary to HTA 46

There was a stop sign on the left which is about 3 metres south of the All Ways Stop on the right. HTA 615(7) sign must be on right side

The two sign are not the same and do not align. The All Way stop sign on the right was about 2 metres

passed the south end of the intersection.

Police narrative text referred to the stop line / road markings at least 4 times. However, my video showed there are no markings nor stop line.

The officers remarks about the lines that are not there may help you a little, but in the end the only part that matters is if the officer says you did not stop.

If there is no by-law for the stop sign though, then you need to make sure you bring that up at the trial. If you can even get a response from somebody in the municipality saying that there is no bylaw for stop signs there, then you should be able to win it. NOTE: +1 on good research for finding no bylaw and the other related regulations.

But even if you win the stop sign charge because of no bylaw, I do not think you can beat the fail to provide insurance charge. That one is another tough one to beat.

jsherk wrote:

The officers remarks about the lines that are not there may help you a little, but in the end the only part that matters is if the officer says you did not stop.

If there is no by-law for the stop sign though, then you need to make sure you bring that up at the trial. If you can even get a response from somebody in the municipality saying that there is no bylaw for stop signs there, then you should be able to win it. NOTE: +1 on good research for finding no bylaw and the other related regulations.

But even if you win the stop sign charge because of no bylaw, I do not think you can beat the fail to provide insurance charge. That one is another tough one to beat.

Went to Court today

Prosecutor spoke to me during recess time

Prosecutor was telling me some of the documents and disclosure are not proper.

Prosecutor said I must have someone helped me with these disclosures etc. I should have someoe who knows law to

represent me... blar blar for over 10 mins. Try to intimate me to accept something

I provided 2 emails from Markham City engineering dept and the email was cc to City Councillor and the Mayor

It confirmed that there are no by-laws at that intersection (HTA 137) and the stop signs were erected by the Developer (HTA 46)

Prosecutor said emails are not admissible. I have to have the writer to testify in Court. That is Bullshit. Under The Canada Evidence Act, Emails with

company email address are considered "self-authenticating trade inscriptions for purpose of federal evidence

I mentioned HTA 615(7) regarding the stop sign on the left-- Prosecutor said Court do not care about whether the stop is erected in accordance with HTA 615(7)

I also point out the stop line was mentioned more than 4 times on police narrative text but his video and my video showed there is no line on the ground

There is an All Way stop which was 2 metres into the intersection and a Stop sign on the left (HTA 615(7) both are not aligned.

I have less than 60 metres to response my view of the stop sign was because cement tryck blocked my view.

Prosecutor said whether there are line or not whether I can see the stop sign before 60 metres are not relevant.

I told her HTA 45 -60 metres rule. and 136(1)a -stop at line-no line. or before entering intersection- but the All Way stop was 2 metres into the intersection- Where should I stop?

I insisted to go to trial.

It was 11:40 am. Prosecutor told the judge that there are issues unresolved. There are not enough time to proceed with the trial. The judge said there are enough time. Prosecutor recommend to reschedule to a later date. I told the judge I am ready to proceed with the trial. Well, Prosecutor got the delay to Jan 2017.

Question: My ticket was late Feb 2016 and now rescheduled to mid Jan 2017- About 10 months. The delay was not my fault. I did not request any additional disclosure and I had provided all disclosure(my video) and other documents to the Prosecutor.

Can I file Form 4F and raise 11b Charter of Rights challenge?

Why do you think Prosecutor requested delay? There are 20 mins to noon and the judge initially said there are enough time.

Fail to obey stop sign was the only ticket I got.

Good job sticking up for yourself!

I would come back next time prepared to proceed again. And make sure you have copies of any of the HTA or regulations or Evidence Act that you want reference.

You could also call court house and tell them you need to meet with a Justice of the Peace to get a subponea for the person at Markham City that can testify to there being no by-law. Alternatively, you could ask them to give you an affadavit signed by notary that there is no bylaw.

You can certainly attempt an 11b argument, however you need to have official transcripts of all previous appearances, which costs $$$. And I think you might be borderline on the timeline anyways.

Op, the arguments you're raising---while creative, have very little legal basis to assist you. Here's why:

1) By-law not required for stop sign----put simply, there is no obligation that a municipality MUST pass a by-law in order for a stop sign to be valid. All the provisions you've referred to are 'permissive' in nature where the legislation says "may" not "shall". If you read the Signs regulation, some signs DO require a by-law in order be valid; a stop sign is not one of them. Section 137(a) is again discretionary---besides, its all "In addition to stop signs required at intersections on through highways". So, don't waste your time on that argument. No by-law is needed.

2) You must stop even when there are no markings----re-read section 136. If there are no marked stop lines, then you must stop before the nearest crosswalk and if that doesn't exist either then you must stop immediately before entering the intersection. So, again, while you can argue with the officer over whether the markings are there or not, the question is still whether you stopped before entering the intersection.

3) Impaired Visibility not a defence---its seems as if the stop sign WAS erected on the right side; you simply didn't see it because of the truck. That's not a defence. The sign itself is therefore according to the requirements. The onus is on YOU as you approach the intersection, especially when there were pedestrians around to use caution and LOOK for the sign before going through the intersection. You could see it from the left, so reasonably, you should have stopped anyway---just as a matter of precaution and safety. You don't proceed through an intersection without satisfying yourself that a stop sign exists or doesn't. The onus is on YOU to stop---especially if you don't know whether there is a sign or not. To proceed otherwise, is extremely unsafe. Just because YOU couldn't see it doesn't excuse the fact you went thru it. That's why stop sign offences are absolute liability. We don't want people who don't exercise caution to be excused for THEIR mistakes. Otherwise, it would be a free-for-all in going through stop signs.

So, given the arguments you've been raising thus far, I think you'll likely be out-played in court by an experienced prosecutor. Perhaps that's why they wanted the adjournment----just to craft their arguments more succinctly. So, tread lightly. You seem to be trying to throw anything you can except answer the real question of whether you truly DID stop or not. That's really all that matters.

As for the 11b argument, its simply too early for that. You have less than a 1% chance of winning that argument. The case law (especially new SCC decision) is simply against you on that one.

Regardless, good luck with your case.

2) You must stop even when there are no markings----re-read section 136. If there are no marked stop lines, then you must stop before the nearest crosswalk and if that doesn't exist either then you must stop immediately before entering the intersection. So, again, while you can argue with the officer over whether the markings are there or not, the question is still whether you stopped before entering the intersection.

The All Way Stop on the right was 2 metres north of the north edge of the traffic island, and already in the intersection.

The stop sign on the left (not All Ways Stop) was about .75 metres south of the intersection.

The two different stop signs (one All Ways Stop on the right and stop sign on the left) do not align. They are about 9 to 10 feet between them

There are no stop line on the ground. If I follow the left stop sign, then I have to stop just before I enter the intersection.

If I follow the right All Way Stop sign, I have to stop when I am already inside the intersection. Also, I have to make sure it is my turn to proceed.

The short distance (less than 60 metres) to react and without the stop line and the two confusing stop sign

3) Impaired Visibility not a defence---its seems as if the stop sign WAS erected on the right side; you simply didn't see it because of the truck. That's not a defence. The sign itself is therefore according to the requirements. The onus is on YOU as you approach the intersection, especially when there were pedestrians around to use caution and LOOK for the sign before going through the intersection. You could see it from the left, so reasonably, you should have stopped anyway---just as a matter of precaution and safety. You don't proceed through an intersection without satisfying yourself that a stop sign exists or doesn't. The onus is on YOU to stop---especially if you don't know whether there is a sign or not. To proceed otherwise, is extremely unsafe. Just because YOU couldn't see it doesn't excuse the fact you went thru it. That's why stop sign offences are absolute liability. We don't want people who don't exercise caution to be excused for THEIR mistakes. Otherwise, it would be a free-for-all in going through stop signs.

My dash cam video showed that the Stop sign on the right was not visible until my van was just behind the cement truck.

The stop sign on the left was partially blocked by a no left turn sign a few feet directly in front of it.

Police did not have hand written notes. He only has a narrative text which I think he prepared them after watching his video.

There are a lot of inconsistancy in his narrative text and he said there is stop line 4 times but it was not there on his video and my video.

If what you say is true, then why bother fighting any traffic ticket ?

The prosecutor was trying pressure me to accept a plea bargin. I did buy it and I was surprised that she want to rescheduled and ask for ONE hour.

I don't care if I win or not as long as I spoke my mind. But I don't know why she want to waste so much time on me.

My personal opinion is that you need to use the shotgun approach when fighting a ticket, because if you are relying on only one thing, then there is a good chance that they will have answer and you are done. With the shotgun approach, they need an answer for each point you bring up AND it gives a greater chance for the JP to make a mistake AND it gives you more ammunition for an appeal if you lose at trial.

Op, you still haven't raised any valid legal basis for a defense. Will your dashcam video show you stopping? If not, then it will only prove the absolute liability offense that you did NOT stop. There's no due diligence defense available on a fail to stop at a stop sign charge.

Besides, your argument about the sign would only be relevant in a civil case if liability was being apportioned amongst parties. You could then argue that the city's poor sign contributed to the damages. But, for the traffic offense, the law is clear. You must stop BEFORE entering the intersection. It doesn't say you have to stop where the stop sign is located. So, you approached an intersection and were facing a stop sign but didn't stop, right? If that can be proven then the case is done. The video will likely prove that. Your dash cam video will just corroborate that.

As for your notes argument, they don't have to be handwritten. Officers type notes as well, especially with the new e-tickets. Clearly, they have to type or write their notes after the incident has occurred. I doubt you will be able to prove that the officer only made their notes after viewing the video. It seems to me like you are just speculating.

Regardless, kudos to you for trying to fight this ticket. However, the problem with the shotgun approach to legal advocacy is that you lose persuasiveness and confuse the trier so that he/she won't focus in on the grounds that do have merit. The best trial lawyers will argue one or two points that they know will succeed. It is the inexperienced and/or insecure advocate who feels the need to raise everything and hope something sticks. Confidence is very persuasive.

highwaystar wrote:

Op, you still haven't raised any valid legal basis for a defense. Will your dashcam video show you stopping? If not, then it will only prove the absolute liability offense that you did NOT stop. There's no due diligence defense available on a fail to stop at a stop sign charge.

Besides, your argument about the sign would only be relevant in a civil case if liability was being apportioned amongst parties. You could then argue that the city's poor sign contributed to the damages. But, for the traffic offense, the law is clear. You must stop BEFORE entering the intersection. It doesn't say you have to stop where the stop sign is located. So, you approached an intersection and were facing a stop sign but didn't stop, right? If that can be proven then the case is done. The video will likely prove that. Your dash cam video will just corroborate that.

As for your notes argument, they don't have to be handwritten. Officers type notes as well, especially with the new e-tickets. Clearly, they have to type or write their notes after the incident has occurred. I doubt you will be able to prove that the officer only made their notes after viewing the video. It seems to me like you are just speculating.

Regardless, kudos to you for trying to fight this ticket. However, the problem with the shotgun approach to legal advocacy is that you lose persuasiveness and confuse the trier so that he/she won't focus in on the grounds that do have merit. The best trial lawyers will argue one or two points that they know will succeed. It is the inexperienced and/or insecure advocate who feels the need to raise everything and hope something sticks. Confidence is very persuasive.

Of course I didn't stop otherwise I won't be asking for help here.

I am 90% sure that the police narrative text was prepared after he saw the video 5 months after the date of ticket.

I will cross examine every line he put down on the narrative text.

I will challenge whether he has indepedent recollection of what happened that day.

Police put down something that are not visible in the video and some contradiction .

My main concern is if police did not prepare any notes on that day, can the police use the narrative in court?

I will not allow him to use the narrative if I can and then challenge his memory.

jsherk wrote:

My personal opinion is that you need to use the shotgun approach when fighting a ticket, because if you are relying on only one thing, then there is a good chance that they will have answer and you are done. With the shotgun approach, they need an answer for each point you bring up AND it gives a greater chance for the JP to make a mistake AND it gives you more ammunition for an appeal if you lose at trial.

Totally agree with you

If I lose, it is a minor conviction with 3 points

If I go for plea bargin, I still get a conviction but no point

Impact on insurance is the SAME.

I will shoot like a machine gun and enjoy the process.

The prosecutor tried very hard to scare me out of the trial. I was very surprised why she wants to adjourn

saying there is not enough time. The JP said there is enough time and asked if there is something... I can see the JP

realized that the prosecutor didn't want to go ahead.. and allow the adjournment.

If I don't have a leg to stand on, the prosecutor should try to get me out within 10 mins. It was 20 mins to noon.

The prosecutor request an hour to try my case. That is very big deal for a stop sign case... I don't think that will last that long.

I will enjoy every second of that.

Whereas the judge will not. Scattergun approaches by self representing defendants just piss them off and you might see the effect on sentence. It won't be much but you have to ask yourself why the professional lawyers don't use the same tactic if it is so successful.

argyll wrote:

Whereas the judge will not. Scattergun approaches by self representing defendants just piss them off and you might see the effect on sentence. It won't be much but you have to ask yourself why the professional lawyers don't use the same tactic if it is so successful.

I pay more to see asport game

I will have a good time with a prosecutor and judge play Judge Judy with me

fisherman7351 wrote:

I pay more to see asport game

I will have a good time with a prosecutor and judge play Judge Judy with me

Good for you! Per-diem prosecutors love people like you who just want to go to court even when they have very little chance of winning because the per-diem gets paid by the hour (at a very good hourly rate too!).

So, knock yourself out. Take time out of your work day (if you work), spend money on parking, waste a few hours sitting in court and preparing for your case, and then go argue your case in court. You'll definitely learn quite a bit, especially the difference between set fines and statutory fines; not to mention the proper rules of evidence. In your case, the prosecutor could ask for up to $500 (the statutory max for the offence). Given that they have video of you not stopping AND its an absolute liability offence (with no due diligence defense), you're really gonna make a per-diem prosecutor's day. Its easy money for them.

While there are cheaper ways to learn things, its your money. The system needs people like you. So, have fun learning and spending your money.

The system definitley needs people like you that are willing to take a stand for their rights and learn how the un-justice system in Canada and Ontario works. Even if you don't win, it is the cost of your education in how it all works.

Personally I think ALL stop signs should be replaced with yield signs which would eliminate the cash grad of absolute liability offences like this. I hate absolute liability offences as they do not have to prove that what you did was actually unsafe and/or caused a problem for anybody.

One of the first lessons most should learn is that if you're not happy with some law, run for office or lobby your government. That's democracy. Unfortunately, many go to court thinking their displeasure with a law is a defence or going to change things. You're in the wrong building folks!

Democracy is using the rights that were giving to you such as the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial by an impratial person. This means it is well within your rights to take every single charge, no matter how small or minor, to court and have them prove you are are guilty, regardless of whether you think you are guilty or not. You are innocent until they prove otherwise. Make them work for it!

"Make them work for it!" That statement speaks volumes...

Regardless of anything else that happens...

If your trial does, indeed, wind up being under twenty minutes (and I highly suspect that will be the case), you should consider filing a complaint against the prosecutor with the prosecutor's office. She has the experience to know how long a trial will likely take. It seems she wanted the adjournment because she acknowledged some of the disclosure was improper and wanted a second chance. Prosecutors' offices do take complaints seriously.

jsherk wrote:

Democracy is using the rights that were giving to you such as the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial by an impratial person. This means it is well within your rights to take every single charge, no matter how small or minor, to court and have them prove you are are guilty, regardless of whether you think you are guilty or not. You are innocent until they prove otherwise. Make them work for it!

Theoretically, there's NOTHING wrong with putting the Crown to its burden, regardless of innocence or guilt. That's a constitutional right. But practically speaking, I find it foolish when folks actually spend their time and money exercising rights that they can reasonably assume will yield them no positive outcome or benefit and will actually waste more of their own resources. If only they would dedicate such time, energy and effort to causes that could yield something of benefit; they might actually better themselves and/or society.

Some folks truly ARE innocent; some also have valid defences and/or excuses---those folks should definitely go to court. But then there are also individuals who only go to court because they have a genuine belief that they are correct (even though the law and evidence says otherwise). Going to court for those people will hopefully be helpful since they will learn from their mistake and hopefully correct their ways. So, again, its not a waste of time to go to court---something good will yield. But, then there's another group of individuals----those that only go to court out of stubbornness or passive-aggressiveness. Those are the ones I think society actually feels sad for because they become victims of the system. After all, their emotions or personalities have simply gotten the best of them and they'll never learn. They will spend more of their time, money and effort on causes that will yield them very little, if anything. That's sad.

Everyone should therefore always ask themselves under which category they belong!

Good post.

highwaystar wrote:

fisherman7351 wrote:

I pay more to see asport game

I will have a good time with a prosecutor and judge play Judge Judy with me

Good for you! Per-diem prosecutors love people like you who just want to go to court even when they have very little chance of winning because the per-diem gets paid by the hour (at a very good hourly rate too!).

So, knock yourself out. Take time out of your work day (if you work), spend money on parking, waste a few hours sitting in court and preparing for your case, and then go argue your case in court. You'll definitely learn quite a bit, especially the difference between set fines and statutory fines; not to mention the proper rules of evidence. In your case, the prosecutor could ask for up to $500 (the statutory max for the offence). Given that they have video of you not stopping AND its an absolute liability offence (with no due diligence defense), you're really gonna make a per-diem prosecutor's day. Its easy money for them.

While there are cheaper ways to learn things, its your money. The system needs people like you. So, have fun learning and spending your money.

I don't see why you say what you said here. Are you trying to scare me to plea guilty????

I really don't need your bull ****

I am retired so I have all the time in the world to play this game.

I have accessible parking plate and I don't have to pay for parking

My son lives a few minutes away from that Court and I normally go to stay there a few days per week.

Satutory fine ???? What kind of bull*** is that??? If I lose the case, I pay whatever on the ticket. Unless the judge want to risk his cosy job, I dare him to increase the set fine... What make you think that they can increase the fine because I fought them too hard?? I have the right to defend myself.

I am innocent until proven guilty...

I know how JP got their job. The majority of them are NOT lawyer.

Just because English is not my first language does not mean I can be scared by people like you.

I like to thank Jsherk who has provided very good advice. charter of right challenge 6 days after the adjounment.

I have filed 11b challenge and hand delivered them to Ag Canada, Ontario, Prosecutor and Court all in one day.

For those who want to scare people like me off ... I donot need your bull ****

So you only like those responses with which you agree and will hurl insults at those who dare to offer a different opinion ?!

You CAN be fined more if you go to trial and are found guilty. It happens all the time. The set fine is for those who choose to pay the ticket, if you choose to go to court then the judge can impose anything within the parameters laid down in the Act.

"What make you think that they can increase the fine because I fought them too hard?? "

Ummm,....the law ?

fisherman7351 wrote:

...

I don't see why you say what you said here. Are you trying to scare me to plea guilty????

I really don't need your bull ****

Its not bull **** if its true. Don't be so sensitive.

fisherman7351 wrote:

Satutory fine ???? What kind of bull*** is that??? If I lose the case, I pay whatever on the ticket. Unless the judge want to risk his cosy job, I dare him to increase the set fine... What make you think that they can increase the fine because I fought them too hard?? I have the right to defend myself.

Clearly, you have no concept of how the fine system works. Statutory fines apply the moment you go in to court. In your case, section 214 applies. That means, a minimum of $60 (which almost never happens with that charge!) to a maximum of $500. Generally, you can expect between $200-400 (depending on several factors).

I only wish I could be in attendance to see you DARE the JP to increase the fine beyond the set fine. Clearly, you haven't read case law. The set fine is simply NOT applicable and it is an error of law for a JP to just 'rubber stamp' and order the set fine. They certainly CAN order an amount equivalent to the set fine (but that's simply because its within the statutory range). The trend lately is to order a higher fine.

fisherman7351 wrote:

I have filed 11b challenge and hand delivered them to Ag Canada, Ontario, Prosecutor and Court all in one day.

Good for you. Hopefully you'll learn a lot about the system from going through the effort of doing a Charter application. I hope you 'perfected' your application so that it is actually heard by the court. Of course, I suspect you also haven't read the latest Supreme Court decision on 11b delays in courts (I'd cite the decision for you but I don't want to scare you any further!). A 10 month delay will simply be laughed at by the court. So, good luck with your application!

So, in conclusion, you've clearly shown your ignorance in law thus far and even more so towards those trying to steer you in the right direction. I therefore suspect that unless the case has a serious evidentiary flaw, you'll be outplayed very quickly by any experienced prosecutor! There ARE ways to attack these cases (and case law) to back it up. But, given that you don't want any bull ****, scare easy, and seem to think you know it all----I'll refrain from offering any more suggestions. I've already taught you about 11B delays, statutory fines, AND by-law requirements. That's enough education for one case!

highwaystar wrote:

fisherman7351 wrote:

...

I don't see why you say what you said here. Are you trying to scare me to plea guilty????

I really don't need your bull ****

Its not bull **** if its true. Don't be so sensitive.

fisherman7351 wrote:

Satutory fine ???? What kind of bull*** is that??? If I lose the case, I pay whatever on the ticket. Unless the judge want to risk his cosy job, I dare him to increase the set fine... What make you think that they can increase the fine because I fought them too hard?? I have the right to defend myself.

Clearly, you have no concept of how the fine system works. Statutory fines apply the moment you go in to court. In your case, section 214 applies. That means, a minimum of $60 (which almost never happens with that charge!) to a maximum of $500. Generally, you can expect between $200-400 (depending on several factors).

I only wish I could be in attendance to see you DARE the JP to increase the fine beyond the set fine. Clearly, you haven't read case law. The set fine is simply NOT applicable and it is an error of law for a JP to just 'rubber stamp' and order the set fine. They certainly CAN order an amount equivalent to the set fine (but that's simply because its within the statutory range). The trend lately is to order a higher fine.

fisherman7351 wrote:

I have filed 11b challenge and hand delivered them to Ag Canada, Ontario, Prosecutor and Court all in one day.

Good for you. Hopefully you'll learn a lot about the system from going through the effort of doing a Charter application. I hope you 'perfected' your application so that it is actually heard by the court. Of course, I suspect you also haven't read the latest Supreme Court decision on 11b delays in courts (I'd cite the decision for you but I don't want to scare you any further!). A 10 month delay will simply be laughed at by the court. So, good luck with your application!

So, in conclusion, you've clearly shown your ignorance in law thus far and even more so towards those trying to steer you in the right direction. I therefore suspect that unless the case has a serious evidentiary flaw, you'll be outplayed very quickly by any experienced prosecutor! There ARE ways to attack these cases (and case law) to back it up. But, given that you don't want any bull ****, scare easy, and seem to think you know it all----I'll refrain from offering any more suggestions. I've already taught you about 11B delays, statutory fines, AND by-law requirements. That's enough education for one case!

I don't have to learn any system

I go in and put up my defence

If the JP doesn't like it, he can find me guilty

What else can he/she do?

Don't try to scare me. I am ready to go through the whole dame show and have the fines ready....

I will enjoy my time..