Hello there, I noticed a similar post. I have a trial approaching and would like some advice in respect to my scenario.

Heres the setup:

Just finished an 18 hour night shift outside in the cold, I was not amuzed. So I leave to go home. I took 30 minutes to drive 8 km. Now Im just plain irritated. Tired yes, dangerously tired? No. Just irritable. Anyway after getting every light red, and stuck behind idiots who should not be driving I arrive at the second last intersection from home. It's now a 45 second drive home. This is Christmas eve by the way. I cross the intersection and to my surprise the Police are holding back traffic so people can get in and out of a little strip mall. Theres another 3 minutes of sitting there, 45 seconds from home. So now im pushing 40 minutes to drive a total of 11 km. This would be the equivalent of taking 3 hours to drive an hour away. We finaly start moving, and to my dismay, the light at the next intersection goes red, for no reason at all. It's a little side street intersecting a major road. Well that was the last straw. I drove down the right turn lane, stoped at the light, made a right turn on the red, then made a shallow U-turn, and made a right on the green light now facing me. This is not running a red light. This was carried out slowly, and safely. Ever since I started riding a bike, I drive my car using the same level of cuation. It took The officer a Km to pull me over as he was not behind me, this I know because I kept looking back to see how long that light was still red. It wasint untill I got on to my street that I saw the police car. So he gets out of the car all pissed off and hands me a ticket for running the red?

I can see how he was ticked off that I didint wait like everyone else, well so be it. I still did not run that light.

jetmech727, Welcome to the forum!

So basically you went around the red lights and didn't wait for the lights to change?

What is the section of the OHTA that is stated on the ticket?

Section 144, subsection 18

jetmech727 wrote:

Section 144, subsection 18

Red light

(18) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle and shall not proceed until a green indication is shown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (18).

This may be of interest:

Exception – turn

(19) Despite subsection (18) and subject to subsection (14), a driver, after stopping his or her vehicle and yielding the right of way to traffic lawfully approaching so closely that to proceed would constitute an immediate hazard, may,

(a) turn to the right; or

(b) turn to the left from a one-way street into a one-way street,

without a green indication being shown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (19).

Thats what I did, then I went right accross the street to make a turn on the greent hat I was now facing.

There is one very long red light in town here that I often do the same maneuver. I know in some states there are "anti-avoidance" laws in place to prevent these u-turns and cutting through parking lots. But I don't know of any in the HTA. In my opinion, you did nothing illegal and should ask the officer (at trial):

1) Did I stop at the red light?

2) Did I then legally turn right in accordance with 144.(19)?

I think this charge can be beaten. I hope you don't cave to the Crown's pressure to plea-bargain. I'd really like to know how you make out with this. Even if the officer testifies that the u-turn was illegal, he didn't charge you for that and he only has 30 days to issue a new ticket from the date of offense. Your trial should be well later that that.

The ticket was dated Dec24 2007 the trial is in April. When the officer confronted me and asked if I new why I was stopped I replied "No". Then he mentioned the light to witch I replied "you mean the U-turn Idid" He then responded by saying "You call drving through the crosswalk a U-turn?" The crosswalk he is refering to is the solid white painted lines that cross the intersections from sidewalk to sidewalk, not the official look and point kind of crosswalk. He's trying to tell me I drove with my tires in the cross lane it. The white solid line was to he left of my car as I drove across the street. I did not do the text book U-turn, but I know of no statement that illustrates the length of both legs of the U-turn. None the less, I did not run through that light. I'm curuous as to where the officer was that he could say I drove through the crosswalk. Unless he was right on the cross line himself, how could he know for sure. Theres a depth perception issue here I think.

You mean you didn't even drive up the road a little ways before you made your u-turn? It sounds like you just made a shallow "arc" around the crosswalk. Hmmm..

I just did a search in the HTA for a minimum distance a u-turn can be made from an intersection, but I couldn't find anything (only 150m to railways, curves, etc).

In MY scenario, I drive about 100ft. before making my u-turn.

Yes, in this case I made a shallow arc. But none the less I did not blow through that red light. I still made a right on a red after coming to a complete stop first, then quicky changed my direction while keeping the crossover on my left hand side. If a shalloow arc is illeagal then I have no problem owing up to it, however there is no way I will accept a charge of running a red, when I've seen people tear through red lights as if they weren't even there. To lump me into the same category as those people is just plain wrong.

The statute does allow you to turn right on a red light (after stopping), but I doubt you're going to find judge/JP anywhere that would agree with your definition of "right turn". Come on, veering a little to the right then left is hardly a right turn. I wouldn't just pay it though. I'd ask the crown to consider amending to Improper Right Turn (2 points) and fine reduction to $50 (based on your honest mistake).

Another option may be to argue Disobey Lane Light, under section 144(10) of the H.T.A. Again as another user pointed out, ask for the min. $50 fine. I would only recommend this option after you have received Disclosure from the Crown. Who knows what the officer may have jotted down, you may have a stronger case than you think.

When do I get Disclosure from the crown? Is then after I say I'm not guilty after I walk into court before the actual trial?

After you file you offence notice with the court, you should type out a form of your own that is addressed to the prosecutor c/o the court..., and in the form list, you full name, ICON and offence number, date of trial, officers name and number. Include the address that the prosecutor can send the disclosure. In the package you receive from the crown's office, it will include all the evidence the prosecutor intends to rely to prosecute the case. In it you will find the officers copy of the offence notice, any notes from the office, a version of events from the officers perspective, any statements from witnesses, and any other evidence they will rely on. You may have a possible defence and you or your agent should be prepared to argue it at the resolution meeting/trial. If you need a copy of a sample disclosure form goto:

http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/8 ... ure_V2.pdf

If you have more questions feel free to contact me anytime.

Well I was offered the Disobey Lane Light option before the trial. I turned tha toption down and chose to fight it. Turns out the officer did not show, so it worked out in my favour.