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.
ok well here is my story .. I had an old megaphone from alarm system and decided since my horns on my car were rusted and were not making a loud enough sound.. i connected the alarm megaphone to the horn wires and it sounded very cool. depending on how log i hold my horn down for . due to the size of the power horn.. and mhy car being a Honda.. meaning no room under the hood i had installed it…
So I got this ticket because the lady behind me was WAY too close and I had to back up before getting hit by another car and dented her bumper.
Offense is stated as follows: Start from Stopped position - Not in Safety
Highway Traffic Act 142 (2)
First of all, I don't really know what that means and if it says that I was not in safety (which I wasn't) why am I getting a ticket? And why didn't the…
This is my first time ever getting a ticket and I am completely frustrated and don't know what to do.
On July 7th, I was driving to work, taking my usual route and it's about a 15 minute drive for me. At the first red light, I noticed I had a bit of time thanks to the countdown so I quickly reached into my bag to grab a lip balm. I noticed I had brought the wrong one so I just kept it out and…
It happened last December. I was facing north in the middle of the intersection at Donmills and McNicoll waiting to make a left turn. There was a big white van on the other side of McNicoll facing south waiting to turn left too. When the light changed to amber, I checked and the road was clear, there was no upcoming vehicle. So slowly I made the left turn. Suddenly a small car dashed up from…
First off, the most similar case and HELPFUL thread has y far come from neo333: a great read and very similar and relevant to my case and of course ticketcombat.com
I'll cole's notes this so that it can be concise and can recap my experience with disclosure, notes and failed stay request and adjourned court date. Thank you for reading and leaving your opinion.
I got a notice in the mail that trial is set four weeks from today, so it's time to request disclosure. I have zero chance of getting an 11b since trial is less than two months after the offense date and the officer did not reduce the charge. I really want to try and create delays on the trial, to reduce the chance of the officer showing up on multiple occasions. Is there any known loop-holes…
Got my first ticket last Thursday and I have a couple of questions. I was driving westbound on Moore St. (west of Bayview) and made a left onto a residential street at a 4-way stop sign. It was my first time driving through that area - was driving my girlfriend to a wisdom tooth surgery.
The police were set up to catch people, as that intersection had a no left turn sign from 7-9 am (buses…
I was in a light collision with a police vehicle last November and will be having a trial by the end of the month. What happened was I was pulled over. I stopped and kept my right signal on. The cop car then tried to pull behind me when he was on my left but 2 cars pulled behind me. The cop wasn't too smart and instead of waiting for the two cars to pull away, he drove forward and boxed all the…
A friend of mine (who is from China and with no knowledge of English at all) asked me to interpret for him on court.
He got pulled over by a stealth patrol car last october, got 3 tickets (fail to show insurance card, using cell phones and fail to stop on right for emergency vehicle) , court date is next week. He told me his insurance expired for less than a month and other charges are false…
My husband was driving my car and passed a school bus with flashing lights. He did not realize this until he was past the bus. The driver honked at him but there were no cops nearby and he didn't get pulled over. I believe the driver or witnesses reported this and we got issued a ticket in the mail. The ticket is under my name as the registered owner: charged with Fail to Stop for…
I have just got a ticket (Fail to yield on through highway) and by the way it's me first ticket and this is how I got it.
Me driving in a residential neighborhood maybe 10-15 km/h approaching a stop sign completely stopped at the stop sign started moving again turning right and out of nowhere I was hit by this van. he went directly to the driver's side fender,wheel, and bumper. Since it was my…
Hi I'm new to this forum but I hope I'm bringing you all good news.
I recently wrote a book short titled ABUSE OF POWER
This book is all about how the Ontario government broke the law to enact the new street racing legislation.
To start with the denial of the right to remain innocent until proven guilty was enacted without due process under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. How it wasn't done…
So i lent my car to my gf the other day and she went to drop her friend at a Go station but when she was turning left into the parking lot at the Go station a bus hits her from behind while she was turning so now my rear fender is pushed in and more scrathes and my bumper is damaged...but the cop that showed up just kept telling my gf thats its her fault cause its private property...is that true…
Hi, thanks for reading. I've read a bunch of articles online and searched the forum to try and find my answers but I'm still unsure so I'm creating a new thread.
I was following a car that was going SUPER fast down the DVP but I got pulled over. I was speeding, too; however I don't want to use the "you got the wrong guy" defence because I'll probably lose.
I left my home at 4 am to pick up my daughter from downtown Toronto. When I passed the major intersection south of my house there were two police cars in the middle of the intersection and one officer waved me through the intersection.
When I returned with my daughter at 5:30 am the police cars were still in the intersection. I slowed down as I approached the intersection but the police were no…
I will be representing my wife at her speeding trial next week. Mostly everything is pretty much run of the mill but since she wasn't speeding we will be having her take the stand. Since this opens up the opportunity for the prosecutor to cross examine, I am just wondering if anyone here knows what kind of questions we should expect from the prosecutor in order to best prepare.
When the court sends out the notice of trial, do they use the address the officer wrote on the ticket, or the actual address in the MTO database? In the case of the former, what are the implications? The reason I ask is that my wife got a ticket last week and the officer wrote the wrong city on it.
This topic discusses the same thing but with CN police; is it any different for regular offences?
Driving onto ramp entering a major highway, posted limit is 100km/h, suggested ramp limit is 40km/h - I end up colliding with the concrete barrier on the passenger side of the vehicle.
Police arrive, suspect alcohol and breathalyze me with a result of 0.00 - I am asked for a statement and cautioned, however (stupidly) I proceed to provide the details anyways.
My friends and I were heading to Kelso Beach, I had signalled and i pulled off to the shoulder as my car seemed to be making noise, but after riding over the shoulder the noise stopped, i signalled back again and merged back into traffic after making sure it was safe, the officer which was ahead of me on the shoulder a few meters away pulled me over.…
I've decided to fight a traffic ticket for stop sign violation. The offense was 12 months ago, and I've got a court date for next Tuesday. I've requested disclosure and, although a bit last minute, received it two weeks before my court date.
Upon reviewing the case materials, there isn't much of a defense I can find -based on the cop having an obstructed view, or any mistakes in the…
I will be going to trial for my red light camera offence.
I'll be arguing two issues, centered on the fact that there are two essential elements of 144(18) - a) a vehicle approaching the intersection shall stop; and b) the vehicle shall not proceed until green. Both essential elements must be contravened beyond a reasonable doubt to be an offence.
1) My ticket says I (being the owner) am "charged…
I'm a newbie, so be kind if I'm messing up. Question: is it illegal to signal oncoming traffic that they are approaching a speed trap by flashing one's lights?
I ask because I was stopped for doing that yesterday evening, but did not end up with a ticket. The officer spend 5-10 minutes n his car, then sent me on my way. I'm wondering if he changed his mind or found out it was legal.
ok well here is my story .. I had an old megaphone from alarm system and decided since my horns on my car were rusted and were not making a loud enough sound.. i connected the alarm megaphone to the horn wires and it sounded very cool. depending on how log i hold my horn down for . due to the size of the power horn.. and mhy car being a Honda.. meaning no room under the hood i had installed it…