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 followed the procedures mentioned in the previous threads regarding the disclosure and received it today. My court date is November 5 2009 in Whitby. After going through the notes I realized 2 things:
1- the notes are horribly illegible and difficult to read
2- I have notes from two different officers.
Now I am not sure if this means that both the officers will be at court for the hearing or…
I hope I can paint the picture with the accuracy that the truth deserves. I have no intention of just beating a ticket.. but more like beating a really unfair ticket. You decide!
I had entered Canada after a short trip downsouth through Detroit on my way to Toronto. Not being equipped with a GPS unit I had to rely on the printable poorman's version from Mapquest. I followed Huron Church Rd.,…
Need an expert advice here. 10 days ago I got a speeding ticket. Ticket has a fatal error on its face-offense not known to law. It says speeding 75km/hr in posted 60km/hr zone. What is the best way to proceed?
1. Should I completely ignore this ticket and let the JP to quash it?
2. Should I go with option 3 - request a trial and force the fatal error by not showing up at court?
My name is Brian. I am in my late 20s and live in Toronto. I do not own a car but half a dozen times a year I rent one with my Visa. (To get out of the city and go to a beach or ski for example.)
I have never drunk and drive but I face a problem and Im wondering if anyone can tell me what to do. Several months ago I was at a weekend party and had quit a bit to consume. When I stopped…
I was travelling east bound on ellesmere road and approached markham road attempting to make a right turn. All signal lights were red and cars traveling down markham road south were given the green arrow. I slowed down and attempted to make the right turn. I got ticketed by a cop who was parked in a gas station facing the intersection in a (no parking zone). I…
Crested a hill, officer coming at me, pulled a u turn and pulled me over.
I will go back and look again but I thought I was in an 80 not a 70 and I am positive I wasn't doing more than 120. My speedo read 110-115. I have aftermarket tires and rims so I assume this would be the difference.
It was around 7pm, already dark, nobody on the road but myself,…
I am looking for the case law that is commonly used when the prosecution says they only need to disclose the testing pages of a radar manual or laser manual.
I am only interested in the binding decisions (appeals court or higher?), and not in the non-binding Justice of the Peace decisions.
I was pulled over two nights ago and charged with failing to stop a stop sign. On the ticket, it says 'disobey stop sign - foil to stop' and does not say 'fail' -- something I think may be a fatal flaw? I have been driving for 12 years with no tickets, yet I live in Brampton where insurance prices are high so I do not want to be convicted as my insurance rates will spike significantly and…
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…
I understand the severity of my offences, and I can't stress how much I regret it. I know I endangered the lives of myself and more importantly others. I usually do not speed and I know running late for work is an unacceptable excuse. I will be a man and accept the consequences of my actions although I would appreciate any advice for my situation.
Guys back in january i got a speeding ticket on dvp, but i am 90% sure he did not caught me on radar, i asked for disclosure request and i just received today, I have asked for: a full copy of the police officers notes, a copy of both sides of the officers copy of the ticket, witness will say statements, speed gun manual, calibration record, repair history and officer's training certificate but…
I need some help here. So today I was on my way to get my tires changed from my winter tires to my regular summer staggered set of tires. I was driving in mississauga on my way to my destination, I got pulled over by an officer where I was given a ticket for having improper mudguards. For some context, I drive a stock 2013 C63 AMG with winter tires at the time. I was never…
I'd like to start this off by saying for the last two weeks I have been browsing the forums. I'm trying to prepare myself for an early resolution meeting with a prosecutor (in Brampton, if that matters). I have a clean record and as a teacher, I always do my best to follow rules (trying to practice what I preach!)
On December 4, 2014 I was preparing to turn right at a very busy intersection.…
I have question, today I was going to work in my normal route there is a triangle intersection with my side being the only one with a stop sign.
There's a car in front me who stopped at the stop sign, and the third-side there's a incoming car with their hazard-light flashing but they don't have stop sign, yet coming in at a slow speed.
Right after the car in front me went through the stop sign,…
On my way to work this morning I received a ticket for disobey sign. I was on Hwy 10 Mississauga in the right lane. The right lane leads to the 401 and there is a sign saying Right Lane Exits. I Tried to merge left before the on ramp as did 3 other people. We all got a ticket for doing that. Is there anything I can do? I did not realize I was breaking any law it was a dotted line where I tried to…
This is my first post, before I jump right in I would like to thank the forum, members, posters and moderators for all the information posted. I feel like I have been able to learn a lot from others experiences, so thank you all.
This will be a lengthy post. But if you are dealing with a Disobey Sign HTA 182(2) - No Straight Through Intersection you may find this extremely…
Let me start this with saying that this isn't in regards to a ticket, more a discussion surrounding front license plates and learning about the rules behind them. (Most of the quote stuff is using colloquial terms, mostly because I couldn't really find a better way to describe it; it's not meant to be offensive.)
I know Ontario law/HTA mandates having a front license plate unlike some States in…
Hi Guys! I've just had my trial day yesterday. I was not at fault but was convicted anyways.
It is such a travesty! There is no justice at the traffic court. It is just a no mercy machine to part someone with his money, no common sense applies and no reasonable argument being considered. Such a shame! The justice, the policeman and the prosecutor ganged up against me. The justice kept interrupting…
Well first of all ... glad to have found the forum - hoping to find answers to 'alot' of questions
I was unfortunate in July 2010 in that I ended up rolling my 2009 Ranger three times, through a fence and landing on the roof on a rained-out road that was/is in need of proper repair in Eastern Ontario.
I was assisted out of the vehicle by the driver who was behind me.
I was traveling down the 401, noticed a speed trap, and started flashing my lights -- in order to warn oncoming drivers.
Within a 30 seconds, a car slowed, crossed the grass, and approached me from behind. Lights appeared, and I then realised that this was an officer in an undercover car.
The officer pulled me over, and while he was polite, clearly his motivation was to…
Does anyone know the specific law, statute, Charter right to refer to when a prosecutor or justice attempts to change the charge on a ticket after a trial has begun? I assume I'd object immediately (without interrupting anyone, of course) but what would be the specific legal basis of my objection?
I was right behind a school bus that looked like it was pulling over to the side in order to turn down a side street, I saw no lights so decided to go around (wide street). Was still moving as I was passing, then as I did pass I heard horn and looked back and in fact it was pulling over to p/u school kids (was a block away from my son's school, so just assumed it wouldn't be picking up kids...it…
