Greetings. Last thursday my wife and kids were in yorkdale shopping mall cinema. I drove in the parking lot to pick them up, parked , waited about 20 minutes till they showed up, backed up and we left. Next day i got a phone call from police, who claimed i was involved in the accident and invited me to come over. Apparently(what they claim) as i was backing up I scratched along a passenger side of car parked to my left. Im not saying i did not do it. The thing is i never felt any impact, nor did i hear anything. There's scratch at my car, but no dent or any structural damage. Just the paint is missing. I was charged with fail to remain as per HTA, article 200-1-a. Policeman said the other driver did not know of the accident until they called him. I was reported by "witness". My question is- 1)This article quotes How does accident on the parking lot apply to article that says about the highway? 2)I do not really expect judge to beleive i didnt notice the accident, i think there's lots of people claiming that. However it is true, so whats my best option? Ive never been in traffic court before, not even for speeding etc. Thanks in advance. PS Policeman did his best to help me get conviction. He made me sign a paper with my answers to his questions such as "I was parked beside a dark car. There was nobody in the car". Of course i know there was nobody in the car- i was parked there for good 20 minutes(at least), i would notice if smb would sit next to me. But later i realized in court they gonna say "So you remember the car but dont remember the accident"...;
Greetings.
Last thursday my wife and kids were in yorkdale shopping mall cinema.
I drove in the parking lot to pick them up, parked , waited about 20 minutes till they showed up, backed up and we left.
Next day i got a phone call from police, who claimed i was involved in the accident and invited me to come over.
Apparently(what they claim) as i was backing up I scratched along a passenger side of car parked to my left. Im not saying i did not do it. The thing is i never felt any impact, nor did i hear anything. There's scratch at my car, but no dent or any structural damage. Just the paint is missing.
I was charged with fail to remain as per HTA, article 200-1-a. Policeman said the other driver did not know of the accident until they called him. I was reported by "witness".
My question is-
1)This article quotes
200. (1) Where an accident occurs on a highway, every person in charge of a vehicle or street car that is directly or indirectly involved in the accident shall,
(a) remain at or immediately return to the scene of the accident;
How does accident on the parking lot apply to article that says about the highway?
2)I do not really expect judge to beleive i didnt notice the accident, i think there's lots of people claiming that. However it is true, so whats my best option? Ive never been in traffic court before, not even for speeding etc.
Thanks in advance.
PS Policeman did his best to help me get conviction. He made me sign a paper with my answers to his questions such as "I was parked beside a dark car. There was nobody in the car". Of course i know there was nobody in the car- i was parked there for good 20 minutes(at least), i would notice if smb would sit next to me. But later i realized in court they gonna say "So you remember the car but dont remember the accident"...;
Case law has confirmed that section 199 (the requirement to report) applies everywhere, but I'd tend to agree that section 200 does not, since it states highway.
Case law has confirmed that section 199 (the requirement to report) applies everywhere, but I'd tend to agree that section 200 does not, since it states highway.
Hello again. I find whole this situation very strange. 2 days after this guy called me from restricted number, claimed to be the owner of a car that i hit and asked if i wanted to settle outside insurance. I said- sure i do, lets meet, show me the damage, we get an estimate and ill pay for that. So he hung up and didnt call me for another week. Then i got a call, he said repair estimate was 1000+ bucks plus i have to pay for his rental car. I said well it is what it is, sad i did so much damage. Another 4 days later he called me and we met. I had 1350 he asked for in my pocket but when i saw the "damage"...i was immediately certain i was just scammed. There's virtually no damage! Some straight line goes through 2 doors. When i touched it it would rub off! So i said lets go to nearest repair shop- guy said he has no time for that. The question is how do i prove it now? They clearly called cops on me for no reason, him and his "witness" and tried to scam me out. The damage is a joke, some pencil line on a car.
Hello again.
I find whole this situation very strange. 2 days after this guy called me from restricted number, claimed to be the owner of a car that i hit and asked if i wanted to settle outside insurance. I said- sure i do, lets meet, show me the damage, we get an estimate and ill pay for that.
So he hung up and didnt call me for another week. Then i got a call, he said repair estimate was 1000+ bucks plus i have to pay for his rental car. I said well it is what it is, sad i did so much damage.
Another 4 days later he called me and we met. I had 1350 he asked for in my pocket but when i saw the "damage"...i was immediately certain i was just scammed. There's virtually no damage! Some straight line goes through 2 doors. When i touched it it would rub off! So i said lets go to nearest repair shop- guy said he has no time for that.
The question is how do i prove it now? They clearly called cops on me for no reason, him and his "witness" and tried to scam me out. The damage is a joke, some pencil line on a car.
You don't get a say in his repair either how it is done or where it is done. If he has an estimate that says that's what it costs well that's it. If you do not want to pay for the repair let insurance handle it. Now having said that that is not outrageous. Since both doors are scratched they both need to be repainted. ops
You don't get a say in his repair either how it is done or where it is done. If he has an estimate that says that's what it costs well that's it. If you do not want to pay for the repair let insurance handle it. Now having said that that is not outrageous. Since both doors are scratched they both need to be repainted.
I dont think i scratched him, thats the thing! I think he drew some line with a pencil and called cops on me. This line goes off as you rub it leaving virtually no trace. I think he's a scammer.
I dont think i scratched him, thats the thing! I think he drew some line with a pencil and called cops on me. This line goes off as you rub it leaving virtually no trace. I think he's a scammer.
I am thinking paying for the damage out of pocket is not likely to lead to the charge being dropped, and if you are going to defend yourself on the basis of there being no damage, or an accident not happening paying for repairs will not help your defence (only a personal opinion) Here is a case where the driver was acquitted of failing to remain, and was found guilty of careless driving which has no relevance to your situation. You get an idea of the details presented in court, and the crown was found not to have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that an accident occurred. R. v. Found, 2011 http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... luZwAAAAAB
I am thinking paying for the damage out of pocket is not likely to lead to the charge being dropped, and if you are going to defend yourself on the basis of there being no damage, or an accident not happening paying for repairs will not help your defence (only a personal opinion) Here is a case where the driver was acquitted of failing to remain, and was found guilty of careless driving which has no relevance to your situation. You get an idea of the details presented in court, and the crown was found not to have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that an accident occurred. R. v. Found, 2011 http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... luZwAAAAAB
If this happened in a parking lot the charge is moot as the section does not apply to private property. The correct charge would have been fail to report. ops
If this happened in a parking lot the charge is moot as the section does not apply to private property. The correct charge would have been fail to report.
Fail to report applies to damage over 1 thousand dollars, isnt it? Well the damage i saw is nowhere near that. EVEN if you have to repaint 2 doors(which you dont, in this case.Wish i could show how minimal the "scratch" is, no more than a paint exchange or marker trace), there's no way 2 doors would cost a thousand. When this guy wanted 1350 bucks it included rental car for him for a week and taxes.
Fail to report applies to damage over 1 thousand dollars, isnt it? Well the damage i saw is nowhere near that. EVEN if you have to repaint 2 doors(which you dont, in this case.Wish i could show how minimal the "scratch" is, no more than a paint exchange or marker trace), there's no way 2 doors would cost a thousand.
When this guy wanted 1350 bucks it included rental car for him for a week and taxes.
Actually two doors do cost over a thousand. I have a newish car and when someone traded paint the doors were completely repainted for about 1900( no dents just repaint). I would not accept a "fix". My car was going to be brought back to new condition and that means repainted. The week car rental was about right as well. Plus there is nothing to say that when you are working it out yourselves that it has to be what it costs. The guy can say he wants 2k or 10k or what ever. Whether the repair costs that or not that is not fraud or a scam. It is civil dispute. He feels it it worth x amount and you disagree. You again have the option to not pay and go through insurance. ops
Actually two doors do cost over a thousand. I have a newish car and when someone traded paint the doors were completely repainted for about 1900( no dents just repaint). I would not accept a "fix". My car was going to be brought back to new condition and that means repainted. The week car rental was about right as well.
Plus there is nothing to say that when you are working it out yourselves that it has to be what it costs. The guy can say he wants 2k or 10k or what ever. Whether the repair costs that or not that is not fraud or a scam. It is civil dispute. He feels it it worth x amount and you disagree.
You again have the option to not pay and go through insurance.
I just want to expand on OPS Copper's comment, so as to perhaps assist others when dealing with matters on private lots . The SCC's decision in Mansour is the leading case on the topic of whether the HTA applied to private parking lots (that decision was further addressed in Ontario in the R.v.Tresham decision). The HTA was subsequently amended, however, those amendments have created legal chaos as well. Then, this year, the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Hajivasilis helped clarify a few things, but then also raised a bunch of new legal concerns and arguments, including regarding section 200. You should therefore read that decision. In the end, I think the safest way to describe it is that: some sections of the HTA DO apply to parking lots, while others don't. Some offences easy to figure out (i.e. the Hajivasilis decision even references a few), while others will undoubtedly be tested in the courts for years to come; unless further clearer amendments are made to the HTA. Welcome to the zany world of statutory interpretation! :) In any event, when dealing with section 200 (Fail to Remain), you still need to be aware that: 1) The parking lot MIGHT have been expressly classified as a 'highway' via local by-law--which is sometimes applies to large malls; or 2) The prosecution can still convince the court that the definition of 'highway' has been met because the area is "designed or intended for, or used by the general public for passage of vehicles, and every private place or passageway to which the public, for the purpose of parking or servicing of vehicles, has access or is invited" So, don't assume that if an accident occurs in a parking lot, that's always the end of the story when charged under section 200. Its definitely an element that you will need to investigate further, but its not the end of the discussion. As you will read in the Hajivailis decision, if the charge is under section 200 of the HTA (Fail to Remain) the definition of "highway" is quite relevant, since it is an express element in the offence. However, if the charge is under section 199 of the HTA (Fail to Report), then it is not a required element since that section does NOT require the accident to have occurred on a 'highway'.
OPS Copper wrote:
If this happened in a parking lot the charge is moot as the section does not apply to private property. The correct charge would have been fail to report. ops
I just want to expand on OPS Copper's comment, so as to perhaps assist others when dealing with matters on private lots . The SCC's decision in Mansour is the leading case on the topic of whether the HTA applied to private parking lots (that decision was further addressed in Ontario in the R.v.Tresham decision). The HTA was subsequently amended, however, those amendments have created legal chaos as well.
Then, this year, the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Hajivasilis helped clarify a few things, but then also raised a bunch of new legal concerns and arguments, including regarding section 200. You should therefore read that decision.
In the end, I think the safest way to describe it is that: some sections of the HTA DO apply to parking lots, while others don't. Some offences easy to figure out (i.e. the Hajivasilis decision even references a few), while others will undoubtedly be tested in the courts for years to come; unless further clearer amendments are made to the HTA. Welcome to the zany world of statutory interpretation!
In any event, when dealing with section 200 (Fail to Remain), you still need to be aware that:
1) The parking lot MIGHT have been expressly classified as a 'highway' via local by-law--which is sometimes applies to large malls; or
2) The prosecution can still convince the court that the definition of 'highway' has been met because the area is "designed or intended for, or used by the general public for passage of vehicles, and every private place or passageway to which the public, for the purpose of parking or servicing of vehicles, has access or is invited"
So, don't assume that if an accident occurs in a parking lot, that's always the end of the story when charged under section 200. Its definitely an element that you will need to investigate further, but its not the end of the discussion.
As you will read in the Hajivailis decision, if the charge is under section 200 of the HTA (Fail to Remain) the definition of "highway" is quite relevant, since it is an express element in the offence. However, if the charge is under section 199 of the HTA (Fail to Report), then it is not a required element since that section does NOT require the accident to have occurred on a 'highway'.
Is this some amended definition of "highway" you're using? The one i see states ""highway" includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; ("voie publique")" So there's nothing about parking.
Is this some amended definition of "highway" you're using?
The one i see states ""highway" includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; ("voie publique")"
You are simply stating the definition in section 1 of the HTA---however, you need to remember that the definition is not exhaustive! See how it only states "includes"---that , means other things may also be included. For greater insight on the definition analyzed refer to the decision in Rv.Douglas. Like I implied before, definitions like this require following lots of case law-----this exemplifies how the law can sometimes be as clear as mud!
You are simply stating the definition in section 1 of the HTA---however, you need to remember that the definition is not exhaustive! See how it only states "includes"---that , means other things may also be included.
For greater insight on the definition analyzed refer to the decision in Rv.Douglas. Like I implied before, definitions like this require following lots of case law-----this exemplifies how the law can sometimes be as clear as mud!
As a follow-up, if the private lot has been declared a highway or public land via by-law or court declaration then your argument will obviously be different. However, if you are simply arguing over the definition of 'highway', I suggest you stick to your guns that it does NOT include a parking lot in Ontario. The expansive interpretation is what is set out in other provinces like BC, but should not be adapted in Ontario. Argue paragraph 35 of the Tresham decision! Remember that the law is quite confusing on this topic---that's why the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and Superior court (even in civil cases) have all chimed in on the topic. If it were clear, it certainly wouldn't require so many interpretations. So, use that to your benefit (which they must give when interpreting)-----they shouldn't be 'reading' extras into the definition. If you lose, just appeal it---give another court a chance to interpret the law again.
As a follow-up, if the private lot has been declared a highway or public land via by-law or court declaration then your argument will obviously be different. However, if you are simply arguing over the definition of 'highway', I suggest you stick to your guns that it does NOT include a parking lot in Ontario. The expansive interpretation is what is set out in other provinces like BC, but should not be adapted in Ontario. Argue paragraph 35 of the Tresham decision!
Remember that the law is quite confusing on this topic---that's why the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and Superior court (even in civil cases) have all chimed in on the topic. If it were clear, it certainly wouldn't require so many interpretations. So, use that to your benefit (which they must give when interpreting)-----they shouldn't be 'reading' extras into the definition. If you lose, just appeal it---give another court a chance to interpret the law again.
Just settled with the guy for 650, that including car rental for a week. Still have the court case coming up. Is there a way to find if Yorkdale shopping mall parking lot was declared a "highway"? I dont see any bylaws like that over the internet.
Just settled with the guy for 650, that including car rental for a week.
Still have the court case coming up.
Is there a way to find if Yorkdale shopping mall parking lot was declared a "highway"? I dont see any bylaws like that over the internet.
Unfortunately Toronto's bylaws are still messed up due to amalgamation and are hard to search. If the designation was made after amalgamation then it would be posted online. However if it was made before amalgamation then it would not be online and you would have to go to the reference library and look through the old bylaws from the old City of North York as well as those from the old Metropolitan Toronto Council. I'm not sure whether it would have been North York or Metro that would have had the authority to make that particular designation.
Unfortunately Toronto's bylaws are still messed up due to amalgamation and are hard to search. If the designation was made after amalgamation then it would be posted online. However if it was made before amalgamation then it would not be online and you would have to go to the reference library and look through the old bylaws from the old City of North York as well as those from the old Metropolitan Toronto Council. I'm not sure whether it would have been North York or Metro that would have had the authority to make that particular designation.
This is all really strange. My court date came up yesterday, and i went there but it appears the ticket i got was never registered and Crown had nothing on me. So they just stamped my ticket as a proof i was there and let me go home.
This is all really strange. My court date came up yesterday, and i went there but it appears the ticket i got was never registered and Crown had nothing on me. So they just stamped my ticket as a proof i was there and let me go home.
I got a speeding ticket in a speed trap for 66km/h in a 50km zone, which i do not beleive i was going that speed. I was in the right lane, and there was another vehicle in the left lane, and the officer pulled both of us over. When the officer approached my vehicle and asked for my licence and registration he mentioned that he clocked me at 66km/h and the other vehicle to my left at 72km/h. I…
I was hit while driving. It was the other guy's fault and he was charged with careless driving.
I have just received a "summons to witness". The summons threatens all sorts of dire consequences if I don't show up to court.
The problem is that I don't want to show up to court. Besides being difficult for me, the other driver is an acquaintance, and I would rather not see him get into trouble. His…
I got a ticket for not fully stop at a stop sign. I file a NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPEAR. I requested full disclosure, I got no answer, I fax another request, no response. I went to the Persecutor office; they gave me the officer note but no video. On trial date the persecutor ask for adjournment until they get video disclosure
The second court date no video disclosure, I asked the…
Today I received a speeding infraction on shoreham drive near York University. A speed trap had been setup.
The infraction is 63 in a 40 as the officer stated it was a school zone. Also the insurance card that was in the glove box (parents car) was expired so a further infraction was issued. The officer stated that since I was a student he would cut me a break if I…
I've been stopped and fined for driving holding a communication device.
The first thing the officer said was "you were texting". I was actually in a conversation in a hands free mode (speakerphone):
"Hands-free mode allowed
(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a person may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while using a device described in those subsections in hands-free mode. 2009, c. 4, s. 2."
What is the requirement for stopping when a school bus is traveling down the roadway, initiates the flashing red lights while still moving but has not yet stopped? If a motorist is traveling through an intersection (through the free-flow approach, minor-street stop controlled) and an oncoming school bus initiates the lights while approaching the intersection, but is still moving and has not come…
Hi, I have a court date Oct. 21,08 for parking in the fire route of my friends building. How can i get this $100 fine reduced or eliminated? only argument i really have is that visitor parking was full and i went around a few times. I wasn't there for long either.
+
I just got a ticket for going right on red fail to stop(114[18])$180. No pedestrians were in the way. I'm not a unsafe driver, so I'm…
Hey everyone, sorry if this is the wrong section for this (i'm a new user )
Well today as I was coming home from class, I was travelling at about 116-118 and police officer was driving in the express holding up traffic and I didn't really see him. So as I go to pass in the middle lane we started going down a slight hill (before the service centre on townline exit); I didn't want to apply my…
I am new to the forum and am hoping for some guidance from forum members. Having recently been charged with Stunt Driving (speeding 157 in 100 zone on Hwy 407) and received a summons (for about a month from now), I had the following questions that I would be gracious for some feedback:
a) what is the actual process for next steps? My understanding is that when I appear at the summons, it is not a…
I currently drive a honda civic, with tinted windows. It is 35 % in the front and 20% in the back. however, i got a ticket due to a police officer said the front tints were to dark and he could not see me (at 4 pm, broad day light). Is this ticket unnecessary? and what is the legal limits?
The ticket said: Colour coating obscuring interior
I got a ticket for obstruct plate on morning of Feb 4 2009. I was driving in front of a police officer who was wearing sun glasses. He pulled me over and insisted he cannot see my plate but it was just some dirt or salt. Is it possible for me to fight the ticket? Also I went on york.ca to check the ticket but it says that the offence not found. It has been over 10 days since i got the ticket so I…
Was charged with not stopping for stop sign that I believe I stopped. I have searched the section number on the Internet and find no results for that charge. I have found HTA 136 1 A and HTA 136 1 B so what is HTA 136 1 9?
Is anybody interested in CVSA or commercial motor vehicle stuff? This was my specialty in policing. I can write some articles about weights, measures, documents, etc, if there's an audience for it.
We have a vehicle which needs to go to a repair shop before it can be licensed. The shop is 10km away. Can a licensed vehicle tow it to the shop? We are hoping to avoid paying for a lift truck to transport it.
Along the same lines, would the laws be different if a farm tractor or other slow moving vehicle were doing the towing? This is a rural property.
I had a perfect driving record. I am in the process of applying for a really good job that takes about year to go thru the application process. One of the conditions is to have a perfect driving record - spotless.
I got a ticket for "operate motor vehicle, no valid tag". The plate was expired. I was driving someone else's vehicle as a favour to them.
Both tickets can be dropped by prosecutor, because I got these tickets before and they just dropped it, when I showed a picture that I put my plate back on and I got the insurance slip.
I set a court date to fight the tickets, because I did not have time to meet with prosecutor. I…
Driving on a 80km/hr highway the car ahead hits the brakes and slows to 55, l slow down right behind him no reason to slow down traffic was moving between 80 and 90. I notice the driver is on the phone and looking through papers on the passenger seat. He begins to start to go a opp officer drives by doing 80 plus in oncoming lane turns around and says l was following to close. Told him what was…
I have recently gone to court for a speeding ticket issued by an OPP officer. As it stood, the officer forgot to sign the ticket. So at my trial, before I made a plea, I pointed this out to the justice of the peace and asked that the ticket be quashed. I was asked to produce my copy of the ticket, which I gave and the JOP then agreed with me and dismissed the case. Before he did so, the…
found this resource online, wanted to ask a few questions
I have my trial today, march 3rd in TOronto East
I got a speeding ticket APril 6th 2009 at 1:12am East bound on the BLoor Viaduct, 74 in a 50, officer was using Lidar and ran out in the middle of the street to stop me
the trial date is today.
I already have filed for an 11b a few weeks back by serving the prosecutor and mailing the…
Ok story starts as this. I admit, I wasn't the smartest!!! lol
I was helping people move on saturday, had a few drinks. Went out for a night dinner with the wife for date night, had a few more drinks at dinner... but nothing extreme. Got home felt tired and we had people coming over so I downed a Red Bull, first stupid mistake, then after they left i went to the bathroom and fainted, was…
Here's the situation. I entered the 401 heading east. After a minute or two I was on the left lane a few car-lengths behind a marked cruiser. He was driving annoyingly slow in the left lane, maybe 110km/h, even if that. (I saw something in the HTA that slower traffic must keep right according to the current flow.) That's why I thought it was 'safe' to pass him. After about 20 or so seconds…
So I have an vehicle which I don't drive over the winter. My birthday is in November. So, to save some cash flow before Christmas, in November 2018 I chose not to buy a sticker, knowing full well that when spring came I would still need to pay the $120 for the period November 2018 - November 2019.
Fast forward to last week, now we finally have some decent weather, I go to the ServiceOntario…
Good morning drivers, law enforcement, and traffic enthusiasts,
I recently received a ticket for "FAIL TO YIELD TO PEDESTRIAN." I was stopped at a red light in the left lane, signalling to turn left. The light turned green and as I pulled into the intersection, a pedestrian on the left crosswalk began crossing in the opposite direction. As I approached the crosswalk to complete the left turn, the…
