Passing Stopped Cars at a Crossover

This is the actual charge - under sect 140 (2)

I have been told it's a 3 demerit point infraction

It happened a few months ago - no ticket was issued at the time

yesterday a summons arrives indicating I am to appear in court in Toronto on Nov 19..

why a summons and not a ticket ? with the ticket I could plead not guilty and mail it back saving a court appearance..

I have never received a summons like this before

Can I mail back the summons and plead not guilty?

any advice on the charge itself?

I did pass 2 cars stopped at the crosswalk but there were no lights or anything else to indicate this was a crosswalk other than the X on the pavement by which time it was too late to stop..

Thanks

you are not to pass at any cross-walk.

Anyone could be walking out.

Cheers

Viper1

if it is a summons with a court date...it is a must attend (and/or paralegal) on that date, can not mail it back in. Failing to attend on the date on the summons, a JP can issue an arrest warrant for you.

viper1 wrote:

you are not to pass at any cross-walk.

Anyone could be walking out.

Cheers

Viper1

well no kidding...

Obviously I know why I got the ticket

my point was that this is a 4 lane road - 2 cars were stopped in the left lane - there was no light at all or any warning I was coming to a crosswalk - I;m in the right lane with no way to know why the 2 cars were stopped...

what I;m looking for here is 1- why a summons and not a ticket to avoid a personal court appearance and 2 - do I have a case

Although it's not directly stated I'm assuming that you where pulled over by a police officer at the time of the incident and issued a warning?

My guess is then that you received the summons because too much time has passed for the Police Officer to issue a ticket, but for some reason the crown has decided to lay a charge via the summons.

I wonder what happened to bring this change.

You will not know if you have a decent defense until you recieve discloser. As always the best course of action is to read the TicketCombat site, then file a discloser request after Nov 19th.

The good news is that I think the clock started running for an 11b on the date of the incident.

thanks for reply Frozenover!

the time delay does make sense as to why a summons was ultimately issued..

I will check into the combat site - thanks!

I have no idea what you mean with the 11b comment??

11b is a stay application (stay means the proceeding are halted and no charges laid/convictions entered) due to unreasonable delay. In short, if your trial is over 1 year after the date of the offence, or you have been to court twice already with no conviction, you can file an 11b stay application to halt the proceedings.

racer wrote:

11b is a stay application (stay means the proceeding are halted and no charges laid/convictions entered) due to unreasonable delay. In short, if your trial is over 1 year after the date of the offence, or you have been to court twice already with no conviction, you can file an 11b stay application to halt the proceedings.

Gotcha - Thanks

That ticketcombat site is quite good - is there an ex copper that owns the site?

I am prepared to utilize an ex-copper type of service..

It would be helpfull to bring disclosure documents with you. Crown should have initial disclosure available on your set date (first appearance).

Just wanted to be sure here... were you pulled over at the time of the alleged offence? Where was the pedestrian at the time you were approaching the crosswalk?

Radar Identified wrote:

Just wanted to be sure here... were you pulled over at the time of the alleged offence? Where was the pedestrian at the time you were approaching the crosswalk?

The pedestrian was a 7 year old boy on a bicycle - he hit me on my left side in the middle of the car - a police car was across the street and right away at the scene - an ambulance arrived very quickly and the boy was taken to Sick Kids

Fortunately the boy is fine..

The boy rode his bike fast across the intersection - I never saw him till the last second because his view was blocked by the car and van in the left lane on my side of the 4 lane road.

The police interviewed me and my friend seperately - didn't issue any ticket and said that likely no charges would be laid.

To my defense are:

1-there were no lights or signs warning I was approaching a Crosswalk - It seems that xwalk is not up to current standards.

2- The boy rode his bike across - proper way is to walk across..

3- I dont live in Toronto and am not familiar with the area - I was driving just under the speed limit.. doubt either point makes any difference.

4-I have no other charges or demerit points on my record

5- The boy was NOT wearing a helmut - not sure this matters either to my charge, but it will be major factor when my insurance company gets sued. The boy's parents have hired a major TO law firm who specialize in personal injury cases.

I have reason to believe that the law firm put pressure on the crown to issue the summons because a conviction strengthens their case - this action ticks me off and really makes me want to fight the charge..

Wow, thats a big change in information.

1) First thing to do is contact your insurance company / law firm they have representing you. They may be willing to pay for or subsidize a lawyer for this charge as it could effect the bigger case.

2) The law firm doesn't need to pressure the crown to lay charges. They probably just went to a justice swore an allegation, and the justice issued the summons. Definitely a legal tactic. The good news about this is that the crown may not show much interested in the charge and could possibily just withdraw, especially if they feel they are being used to get a bigger payout in a civil case. Best defense here will be asking the cop why he didn't issue a ticket at the time.

3) I would also expect to see somebody representing the boy on Nov 19 so make trouble for you.

4) Bottom line it's in your best interest to use professional help, and probably best to use a lawyer familiar with the civil case.

Frozenover wrote:

Wow, thats a big change in information.

1) First thing to do is contact your insurance company / law firm they have representing you. They may be willing to pay for or subsidize a lawyer for this charge as it could effect the bigger case.

We have been in constant contact with my insurance company - I was expecting them to offer a lawyer for this charge but they said no - they do not get involved in any charges that I may get..

bit surprising but the lady handling the file didn't seem too concerned - that the facts will come out and any settlement will be based on the facts - whether I get charged or convicted doesn't change the facts in any way - it happened the way it happened..

I can see her point..

2) The law firm doesn't need to pressure the crown to lay charges. They probably just went to a justice swore an allegation, and the justice issued the summons. Definitely a legal tactic. The good news about this is that the crown may not show much interested in the charge and could possibily just withdraw, especially if they feel they are being used to get a bigger payout in a civil case. Best defense here will be asking the cop why he didn't issue a ticket at the time.

cop said that he personally wouldnt have issued one - cop told me the other side lawyer forced the charge! The crown asked the lawyer, do you really want to have the boy dragged in and lawyer said they were prepared to..

definately legal strategy by the lawyer and you dont know how much the family may be behind it too..

3) I would also expect to see somebody representing the boy on Nov 19 to make trouble for you.

have to agree with you here..

4) Bottom line it's in your best interest to use professional help, and probably best to use a lawyer familiar with the civil case.

Yes I'm certainly leaning that way and why I posted here - this would be my first use of a lawyer/ex-copper for a traffic violation..

Thanks for the comments/advice..

City of Toronto by-laws allow for a kid to ride a bike on the sidewalk, but they can't ride it through a crosswalk like that, it's against the HTA. The kid must dismount and walk the bike through the crosswalk, which is probably why the officer did not charge you at the time.

Poorly marked crosswalk (might be worthwhile seeing if the markings were up to standard), kid riding a bike at high speed through the crosswalk (illegal) without a helmet (also illegal), you were driving below the speed limit, police officer did not charge you at the time... the paralegal you hire should be able to blow this one to tiny bits. Simply because other vehicles are stopped on a roadway, obviously, doesn't mean you have to, particularly with the absence of a sign that says "no passing here to crossing" (you said there wasn't any sign).

The parents' lawyer is in for a surprise in court, probably deals with litigation and knows nothing about HTA. If you haven't already, put together your own notes, and perhaps even re-visit the scene of the collision to help refresh your memory. The more info you have, the better chance the paralegal will have of winning, and the easier it will be in the civil case down the road. Add into your notes the officer's comment about the lawyer "forcing the charge." After the HTA case is decided, turn all of it over to the lawyer handling the civil case.

yes I would want to take the paralegal or lawyer to the scene and recreate what exactly happened..take photos etc..

I assume this person woud know how to find out what current crossing codes are how it compares to the one in question

Radar Identified wrote:

The kid must dismount and walk the bike through the crosswalk, which is probably why the officer did not charge you at the time. .

that would not be the reason.

Would be interviews of all witnesses. Would also wait to see the outcome of the injuries to the kid. This could be waiting for the child to be released from hospital and speaking to him at his residence. Then might take all the statements to the crown for the crown to decide which charge, if any should be laid.

Sign requirements: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/e ... _e.htm#BK5

Toronto by-laws are still messed up from consolidation, so you might want to ask your paralegal to look into whether that crossover is a proper crossover enacted by a by-law. I think the by-laws are still in several different documents, like Metropolitan Toronto By-law No. 108-86 and By-law No. 23506 of the former City of Scarborough. It would depend on which area you were in.

Relevant HTA sections:

- HTA 104 (2.1) ["all" bicycle riders to wear helmet (see regulation below)]

- HTA 140 (1) [when a driver is required to yield to pedestrians in a crossover]

- HTA 140 (2) [what to do when coming upon other vehicles stopped at a crossover]

- HTA 140 (3) [no passing within 30 m of crossover]

- HTA 140 (4) [no pedestrian shall walk into the path of a vehicle that simply cannot yield]

- HTA 140 (5) [no municipal crossover is valid on streets with a limit in excess of 60 km/h]

- HTA 140 (6) [no riding in crossover!]

- Reg. 610 (3) and (4) [helmet requirements]

- Reg. 610 (5) [age exemption for those over 18, not applicable in your case though]

Thanks very much Squishy!!!

very helpful