Here's the deal. Ford Escape pulled over in S bound lane with side smashed in. I'm assessing whether anyone is hurt or needs help and also can't figure out why it is in such condition when no other smashed up cars are near it. Although baffled I decide to carry on in the N bound lane and as I begin to accelerate (20kph is my guess at the time) I see a white Toyota just in front of me and I brake hard but still hit it. It in turn gets pushed into the pickup infront of it. Turns out there is a dead deer in our lane and that is why they are stopped and hence the damaged vehicle in the opposite lane. Now, the burden of proof. The disclosure has no mention of any witness seeing me until I hit. What's my best defence here? Do they have to actually mention a distance of some sort or witness the fact that I was behind them at all before they were struck? None of the witnesses in the other vehicles saw me before they were struck. The word "follow" indicates to me some sort of driving motion of which there are no witnesses until after the fact. Any advice on how to defend this would be greatly and graciously appreciated. I'd just like to keep my clean record clean. Thanks in advance.
Here's the deal. Ford Escape pulled over in S bound lane with side smashed in. I'm assessing whether anyone is hurt or needs help and also can't figure out why it is in such condition when no other smashed up cars are near it. Although baffled I decide to carry on in the N bound lane and as I begin to accelerate (20kph is my guess at the time) I see a white Toyota just in front of me and I brake hard but still hit it. It in turn gets pushed into the pickup infront of it. Turns out there is a dead deer in our lane and that is why they are stopped and hence the damaged vehicle in the opposite lane.
Now, the burden of proof. The disclosure has no mention of any witness seeing me until I hit. What's my best defence here? Do they have to actually mention a distance of some sort or witness the fact that I was behind them at all before they were struck? None of the witnesses in the other vehicles saw me before they were struck. The word "follow" indicates to me some sort of driving motion of which there are no witnesses until after the fact. Any advice on how to defend this would be greatly and graciously appreciated. I'd just like to keep my clean record clean. Thanks in advance.
Well you hit a vehicle that was ahead of you that stopped? If the evidence doesn't clearly describe follow to close not sure what would? Careless Driving also fits, so I suspect the officer cut you a break. You did cause the accident, and the duty of the vehicle in front of you doesn't include braking in a user friendly manner so they'll bare no responsibility... Follow Too Closely doesn't involve measures or times, it involves 'did you allow yourself sufficient space and time to prevent a collision' Pretty sure we know the answer. Sorry.
Well you hit a vehicle that was ahead of you that stopped?
If the evidence doesn't clearly describe follow to close not sure what would?
Careless Driving also fits, so I suspect the officer cut you a break.
You did cause the accident, and the duty of the vehicle in front of you doesn't include braking in a user friendly manner so they'll bare no responsibility...
Follow Too Closely doesn't involve measures or times, it involves 'did you allow yourself sufficient space and time to prevent a collision'
You could try plea bargaining to "fail to turn to avoid collision." I believe that's 2 demerit points and $110 fine. Same price, fewer demerit points, and, depending on your insurance company, they will look much more favourably on that than "follow too closely." If you had fully stopped and started moving forward, you could also plea-bargain to "start from stopped position, not in safety." Based upon the circumstances, I think that's your best bet... unless the person you hit doesn't show up for court. Collision witnesses are usually subpoenaed, so they will show up. Follow too closely is difficult to get a conviction on... IF no collision occurs (depending on the defence). With a collision, it is much easier. If it goes to trial, you'll need to show that you were faced with a rapidly changing circumstance on the highway (e.g. vehicle cut you off, and immediately slammed on the brakes, giving you no chance to react or re-attain proper following distance). A dead deer on the highway with vehicles that had already stopped for it is not a rapidly changing circumstance. You could also consult a paralegal and see what they say about it, but chances are, they'll go for a plea bargain to a lesser charge as well.
You could try plea bargaining to "fail to turn to avoid collision." I believe that's 2 demerit points and $110 fine. Same price, fewer demerit points, and, depending on your insurance company, they will look much more favourably on that than "follow too closely." If you had fully stopped and started moving forward, you could also plea-bargain to "start from stopped position, not in safety." Based upon the circumstances, I think that's your best bet... unless the person you hit doesn't show up for court. Collision witnesses are usually subpoenaed, so they will show up.
Follow too closely is difficult to get a conviction on... IF no collision occurs (depending on the defence). With a collision, it is much easier. If it goes to trial, you'll need to show that you were faced with a rapidly changing circumstance on the highway (e.g. vehicle cut you off, and immediately slammed on the brakes, giving you no chance to react or re-attain proper following distance). A dead deer on the highway with vehicles that had already stopped for it is not a rapidly changing circumstance.
You could also consult a paralegal and see what they say about it, but chances are, they'll go for a plea bargain to a lesser charge as well.
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
Respectfully, It is absolutely wrong! Based on the scenario posted by Bluegirl there is a case. On this evidence I dont see how conviction can be entered. The defendant may even beat this allegation by NOT TESTIFYING AT ALL. Let the prosecution prove their case.... Regarding "following" there are many caselaw materials that specifficaly address variables like speed, time and distance.
Follow Too Closely doesn't involve measures or times
Respectfully, It is absolutely wrong!
Based on the scenario posted by Bluegirl there is a case. On this evidence I dont see how conviction can be entered. The defendant may even beat this allegation by NOT TESTIFYING AT ALL. Let the prosecution prove their case....
Regarding "following" there are many caselaw materials that specifficaly address variables like speed, time and distance.
Some case law regarding following too closely... R. v. Haddad, 2009 Couple of key points: - Follow too closely is an offence of strict liability (paragraph 6); - A rear-end collision is NOT "prima facie" evidence of following too closely (paragraph 8, reference: R. v. Ouseley, 1973); - The officer's opinion that a vehicle was following too closely, on its own, is too subjective to render a conviction; - "...there must be some evidence that the following distance constituted a danger having due regard to the speed of the vehicles, and the traffic and highway conditions. This evidence needs to be more substantive than a concern in the mind of the driver being followed." (Paragraph 47) City of Toronto v. Baillie, 2007 This one did involve a collision.
- Follow too closely is an offence of strict liability (paragraph 6);
- A rear-end collision is NOT "prima facie" evidence of following too closely (paragraph 8, reference: R. v. Ouseley, 1973);
- The officer's opinion that a vehicle was following too closely, on its own, is too subjective to render a conviction;
- "...there must be some evidence that the following distance constituted a danger having due regard to the speed of the vehicles, and the traffic and highway conditions. This evidence needs to be more substantive than a concern in the mind of the driver being followed." (Paragraph 47)
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
how much more danger do you need? just plugged a vehicle from behind
Radar Identified wrote:
- "...there must be some evidence that the following distance constituted a danger having due regard to the speed of the vehicles, and the traffic and highway conditions.
how much more danger do you need? just plugged a vehicle from behind
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Just wondering how I would go about arguing this case. In their statements the witnesses in the forward vehicles did not see me coming so therefore no mention of distances etc. My theory is, that, a unit of measure or notification there-of need be noted. Also I really wasn't doing any "following" of the previous vehicles. I do realize this is just a matter of definition. If I were in the NHL I would have gotten 10 games and no driving record...Hee.
Just wondering how I would go about arguing this case. In their statements the witnesses in the forward vehicles did not see me coming so therefore no mention of distances etc. My theory is, that, a unit of measure or notification there-of need be noted. Also I really wasn't doing any "following" of the previous vehicles. I do realize this is just a matter of definition.
If I were in the NHL I would have gotten 10 games and no driving record...Hee.
Actually, that was my point. Haddad did not have a collision and was found not guilty. Baillie did have a collision and was found guilty. Rear-end collision is not prima facie evidence of follow too closely because the defendant may have been cut off (no fault), had another vehicle pull out in front of them (no fault), or come around a corner too fast and hit a stopped vehicle (careless driving), etc.
hwybear wrote:
how much more danger do you need? just plugged a vehicle from behind
Actually, that was my point.
Haddad did not have a collision and was found not guilty. Baillie did have a collision and was found guilty.
Rear-end collision is not prima facie evidence of follow too closely because the defendant may have been cut off (no fault), had another vehicle pull out in front of them (no fault), or come around a corner too fast and hit a stopped vehicle (careless driving), etc.
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
Yes, an accident doesn't prove Following Too Close (FTC) by itself. The relevant caselaw is in that Haddad decision, specifically: Regina v. Borg, [2005] O.J. No. 1823 (Ont. C.J.); Regina v. Ouseley, [1973] 1 O.R. 729 (Ont. C.A.); Both of those are higher court decisions, so the JP is bound by them (they will many times disagree with previous decisions that have been made only by other JP's). In R. v. Robbins (which is a BC case, so does not bind any Ontario court, although other Ontario cases might have cited it and incorporated it into their decisions) the judge said ... I think the words "follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent", import the concept of distance between two moving motor vehicles. It seems to me that if the vehicle ahead suddenly stops that creates an emergency situation which is not contemplated by the enactment. Read the rest of the Haddad case. You would think that guy would be dead to rights, considering the evidence given (i.e. followed within less than a car length on the 407 for over a half-km, at 115 kph). But because no objective reasonable distance data was led, the prosecution failed to tick all the boxes. This w/o the defendant taking the stand to offer any contrary evidence.
Yes, an accident doesn't prove Following Too Close (FTC) by itself. The relevant caselaw is in that Haddad decision, specifically:
Regina v. Borg, [2005] O.J. No. 1823 (Ont. C.J.);
Regina v. Ouseley, [1973] 1 O.R. 729 (Ont. C.A.);
Both of those are higher court decisions, so the JP is bound by them (they will many times disagree with previous decisions that have been made only by other JP's).
In R. v. Robbins (which is a BC case, so does not bind any Ontario court, although other Ontario cases might have cited it and incorporated it into their decisions) the judge said ...
I think the words "follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent", import the concept of distance between two moving motor vehicles. It seems to me that if the vehicle ahead suddenly stops that creates an emergency situation which is not contemplated by the enactment.
Read the rest of the Haddad case. You would think that guy would be dead to rights, considering the evidence given (i.e. followed within less than a car length on the 407 for over a half-km, at 115 kph). But because no objective reasonable distance data was led, the prosecution failed to tick all the boxes. This w/o the defendant taking the stand to offer any contrary evidence.
Just read the Toronto v. Baillie decision. It's unfortunate, as I think the JP's erred here. The test for FTC is not stopping distances in case of a stopped vehicle in front of you. It's the distances needed to stop when "following" another car (i.e. the other car is also moving). As JP Quon says in his judgment, you would need to be behind any car by 8 car lengths to conform to that chart. That might even be more than the distance that is enumerated in the HTA for big commercial vehicles (CVOR's), in the very next section. If that was the criteria, then the police could hand out FTC's to pretty much any vehicle following another on the 400-series of highways. I think the defendant could've appealed, and won. Dunno if they did or not.
Just read the Toronto v. Baillie decision. It's unfortunate, as I think the JP's erred here. The test for FTC is not stopping distances in case of a stopped vehicle in front of you. It's the distances needed to stop when "following" another car (i.e. the other car is also moving). As JP Quon says in his judgment, you would need to be behind any car by 8 car lengths to conform to that chart. That might even be more than the distance that is enumerated in the HTA for big commercial vehicles (CVOR's), in the very next section. If that was the criteria, then the police could hand out FTC's to pretty much any vehicle following another on the 400-series of highways.
I think the defendant could've appealed, and won. Dunno if they did or not.
Once again, if you hit the vehicle in front you, you didn't have time to stop...if you didn't have time to stop, where you not following to closely to stop / avoid collision... Had you been farther back would you have avoided the collision...
Once again, if you hit the vehicle in front you, you didn't have time to stop...if you didn't have time to stop, where you not following to closely to stop / avoid collision...
Had you been farther back would you have avoided the collision...
At least the Crown introduced some evidence that purported to show that the following distance was "unsafe." All it did, though, was just show the distance required to stop if approaching a stationary object, not following a moving one. JP Quon normally releases some pretty detailed and well-thought-out decisions. This one, I don't agree with. The defendant probably could have appealed. Yes but you cannot "follow" a stopped vehicle.
Keroba wrote:
Just read the Toronto v. Baillie decision. It's unfortunate, as I think the JP's erred here.
At least the Crown introduced some evidence that purported to show that the following distance was "unsafe." All it did, though, was just show the distance required to stop if approaching a stationary object, not following a moving one.
Keroba wrote:
I think the defendant could've appealed, and won.
JP Quon normally releases some pretty detailed and well-thought-out decisions. This one, I don't agree with. The defendant probably could have appealed.
FyreStorm wrote:
Had you been farther back would you have avoided the collision...
Yes but you cannot "follow" a stopped vehicle.
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
In my disclosure statement an accident report is present. The diagram makes no sense. There is a drawing of the road on which the accident happened and all 3 of the vehicles are indicated on the diagram. The diagram includes some measurements of the intersection just south of the accident and the measurements are way off. I drove the road last week and they have indicated that it is 140m to the next intersection but it is easily 500m unless it is a driveway that is actually being depicted. No markings as to what road is what. Also they have drawn a road that travels west but the next nearest intersection goes east. Any thoughts on this matter?
In my disclosure statement an accident report is present. The diagram makes no sense. There is a drawing of the road on which the accident happened and all 3 of the vehicles are indicated on the diagram. The diagram includes some measurements of the intersection just south of the accident and the measurements are way off. I drove the road last week and they have indicated that it is 140m to the next intersection but it is easily 500m unless it is a driveway that is actually being depicted. No markings as to what road is what. Also they have drawn a road that travels west but the next nearest intersection goes east. Any thoughts on this matter?
In that case, yes. Main issue is, does the accident report depict the actual collision scene more or less correctly? (Cars/angles/etc) Unless the intersections were involved in some way, it's not a big deal.
FyreStorm wrote:
Agreed, hence why most officers lay a CARELESS...
In that case, yes.
Bluegirl wrote:
Also they have drawn a road that travels west but the next nearest intersection goes east. Any thoughts on this matter?
Main issue is, does the accident report depict the actual collision scene more or less correctly? (Cars/angles/etc) Unless the intersections were involved in some way, it's not a big deal.
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
Why don't you pm the poster 'traffic law' and ask for some guidance he/she seems to be on the right track.
Bluegirl wrote:
In my disclosure statement an accident report is present. The diagram makes no sense. There is a drawing of the road on which the accident happened and all 3 of the vehicles are indicated on the diagram. The diagram includes some measurements of the intersection just south of the accident and the measurements are way off. I drove the road last week and they have indicated that it is 140m to the next intersection but it is easily 500m unless it is a driveway that is actually being depicted. No markings as to what road is what. Also they have drawn a road that travels west but the next nearest intersection goes east. Any thoughts on this matter?
Why don't you pm the poster 'traffic law' and ask for some guidance he/she seems to be on the right track.
Careless is an even harder offence to prove for the prosecution, as it involves mens rea on top of the actus reus needed to convict for a FTC. Said another way, if you cant successfully prosecute for FTC, youll never win a Careless Driving prosecution. I dont know the whole story from Bluegirl … the deer was hit by the southbound vehicle and thrown into the northbound lane? The damaged vehicle to your left caught your attention, which caused you to look over momentarily at a most unopportune moment, as it meant you couldnt see the stopped vehicle just a short way up, correct? There was no willful disregard for others in such driving, so a Careless would never stick. Ill take it to extremes here, but if youre driving along on the highway, and a tractor-trailer blows up in the opposite lanes, of course its going to grab your attention. If in those moments of inattention you have a collision, it is NOT careless driving. Did the pickup in front of the Toyota hit the deer as well? If not, the prosecutor will probably say "well, they were able to avoid hitting the deer and each other; that is, until you slammed into them." Thing is, their attention was likely never diverted to the side as yours was. They wouldve seen the southbound vehicle hit the deer, but then instead of following the direction of the damaged vehicle, they wouldve concentrated on (for the pickup) the deer coming into his/her lane, and for the Toyota, the pickup in front of them. You on the other hand had your attention diverted to the side, which I think is understandable in the circumstances. FTC needs actus reus, which means a voluntary guilty act. You were never "following" too close, b/c the car ahead was stopped, and so no following could take place. Can I ask why you had slowed to 20 kph? Was it just from spotting the damaged vehicle on the side of the road, or was there anything else? How far up the road did you see the Escape (the less time you saw it, the more understandable and reasonable your diverted attention would be)? What was the normal speed limit on that road? Are you planning on defending yourself? When was the original offence date if you dont mind me asking?
Careless is an even harder offence to prove for the prosecution, as it involves mens rea on top of the actus reus needed to convict for a FTC.
Said another way, if you cant successfully prosecute for FTC, youll never win a Careless Driving prosecution.
I dont know the whole story from Bluegirl … the deer was hit by the southbound vehicle and thrown into the northbound lane? The damaged vehicle to your left caught your attention, which caused you to look over momentarily at a most unopportune moment, as it meant you couldnt see the stopped vehicle just a short way up, correct?
There was no willful disregard for others in such driving, so a Careless would never stick.
Ill take it to extremes here, but if youre driving along on the highway, and a tractor-trailer blows up in the opposite lanes, of course its going to grab your attention. If in those moments of inattention you have a collision, it is NOT careless driving.
Did the pickup in front of the Toyota hit the deer as well? If not, the prosecutor will probably say "well, they were able to avoid hitting the deer and each other; that is, until you slammed into them." Thing is, their attention was likely never diverted to the side as yours was. They wouldve seen the southbound vehicle hit the deer, but then instead of following the direction of the damaged vehicle, they wouldve concentrated on (for the pickup) the deer coming into his/her lane, and for the Toyota, the pickup in front of them. You on the other hand had your attention diverted to the side, which I think is understandable in the circumstances. FTC needs actus reus, which means a voluntary guilty act. You were never "following" too close, b/c the car ahead was stopped, and so no following could take place.
Can I ask why you had slowed to 20 kph? Was it just from spotting the damaged vehicle on the side of the road, or was there anything else? How far up the road did you see the Escape (the less time you saw it, the more understandable and reasonable your diverted attention would be)? What was the normal speed limit on that road?
Are you planning on defending yourself? When was the original offence date if you dont mind me asking?
I have laid well over 1000 careless drivings...and continue too...despite what you think, it's a very winnable charge... You can't blame 99.999999% of collision of exploding trailers etc...
I have laid well over 1000 careless drivings...and continue too...despite what you think, it's a very winnable charge...
You can't blame 99.999999% of collision of exploding trailers etc...
Rubbernecking describes the act of drivers trying to view the carnage resulting from a traffic accident. The term literally refers to the craning of a person's neck in order to get a better view. It can be the cause of traffic jams, as drivers slow down to see what happened in a crash. It is also a cause of accidents as drivers become distracted and change their rate of travel while other drivers are legitimately stopped for the collision. Rubbernecking has also come to be used more generally to describe voyeuristic interest in someone else's "business"
Keroba wrote:
Ill take it to extremes here, but if youre driving along on the highway, and a tractor-trailer blows up in the opposite lanes, of course its going to grab your attention. If in those moments of inattention you have a collision, it is NOT careless driving.
Rubbernecking describes the act of drivers trying to view the carnage resulting from a traffic accident. The term literally refers to the craning of a person's neck in order to get a better view. It can be the cause of traffic jams, as drivers slow down to see what happened in a crash. It is also a cause of accidents as drivers become distracted and change their rate of travel while other drivers are legitimately stopped for the collision. Rubbernecking has also come to be used more generally to describe voyeuristic interest in someone else's "business"
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
I disagree. The "disregard" does not have to be willful. It only has to be lack of due care and attention, or put another way, falling below the standard expected of a reasonable and prudent (but not perfect) driver. However, you're right - momentary, brief distraction or a minor mistake is not careless driving (as per case law). Have you looked at the R. v. Haddad and Toronto v. Baillie case links earlier in this thread?
Keroba wrote:
There was no willful disregard for others in such driving, so a Careless would never stick.
I disagree. The "disregard" does not have to be willful. It only has to be lack of due care and attention, or put another way, falling below the standard expected of a reasonable and prudent (but not perfect) driver. However, you're right - momentary, brief distraction or a minor mistake is not careless driving (as per case law).
FyreStorm wrote:
Can you name some?
Have you looked at the R. v. Haddad and Toronto v. Baillie case links earlier in this thread?
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
This sums up the caselaw around Careless Driving quite nicely: http://dynamiclawyers.com/DL_blog/careless-driving/28/ FyreStorm, do you have any research showing the percentage of Careless Driving charges in any given year in Ontario that result in convictions? If so, please post it here, 'cos Id love to see it. From only anecdotal evidence, I would suspect that less than a quarter of Careless Driving charges actually result in convictions. For the other 75%, I bet half of those are plead down to Follow Too Close, and the other half withdrawn altogether. And w/o doubt its partly because too many police officers still hold a laymans conception of what Careless Driving means (i.e. something akin to "you rear-ended him? Well, that was pretty careless of you, wasnt it?") instead of its actual legal concept in Ontario jurisprudence.
This sums up the caselaw around Careless Driving quite nicely:
FyreStorm, do you have any research showing the percentage of Careless Driving charges in any given year in Ontario that result in convictions? If so, please post it here, 'cos Id love to see it. From only anecdotal evidence, I would suspect that less than a quarter of Careless Driving charges actually result in convictions. For the other 75%, I bet half of those are plead down to Follow Too Close, and the other half withdrawn altogether. And w/o doubt its partly because too many police officers still hold a laymans conception of what Careless Driving means (i.e. something akin to "you rear-ended him? Well, that was pretty careless of you, wasnt it?") instead of its actual legal concept in Ontario jurisprudence.
and no way is this marketing to buy into what they are trying to sell :roll: kind of like stats published by whatever company, how is it going to benefit them?
Keroba wrote:
This sums up the caselaw around Careless Driving quite nicely:
I dont believe the author of that post was a lawyer or paralegal advertising his services, but whatever. Perhaps this summary will meet with wide approval? Duhaime.org
I dont believe the author of that post was a lawyer or paralegal advertising his services, but whatever.
Perhaps this summary will meet with wide approval?
Or this: <u>Keeping a Proper Lookout</u> The last three paragraphs are quite topical: <i>In Dalby v Reece, Justice Oliver of the British Columbia Supreme Court heard of a 2 a.m. motor vehicle accident. At issue was a fatal multiple vehicle accident on a busy international highway. As Dalby approached, his gaze was diverted to one of the vehicles and not realizing that others lay strewn on the highway just before him, by the time he returned his gaze to the road, it was too late and he plowed into the defendant's car. The argument was made that if Dalby had of kept his eyes to the road, the collision could of been averted. The judge disagreed, not wanting to impose upon drivers superhuman lookout powers: "The plaintiff was keeping a proper lookout at all material times and that the momentary diversion of his gaze from the road immediately ahead to the scene of an apparent accident was not, in the circumstances, negligent."</i> Or higher up … <i>While a driver cannot be excused for failing to keep a proper lookout, it may not be unreasonable to expect a driver to keep a sharper and more vigilant lookout for something he or she may reasonably expect to be on the highway than he or she would for something he or she is entitled to expect would not be there.</i>
<i>In Dalby v Reece, Justice Oliver of the British Columbia Supreme Court heard of a 2 a.m. motor vehicle accident. At issue was a fatal multiple vehicle accident on a busy international highway. As Dalby approached, his gaze was diverted to one of the vehicles and not realizing that others lay strewn on the highway just before him, by the time he returned his gaze to the road, it was too late and he plowed into the defendant's car. The argument was made that if Dalby had of kept his eyes to the road, the collision could of been averted.
The judge disagreed, not wanting to impose upon drivers superhuman lookout powers:
"The plaintiff was keeping a proper lookout at all material times and that the momentary diversion of his gaze from the road immediately ahead to the scene of an apparent accident was not, in the circumstances, negligent."</i>
Or higher up …
<i>While a driver cannot be excused for failing to keep a proper lookout, it may not be unreasonable to expect a driver to keep a sharper and more vigilant lookout for something he or she may reasonably expect to be on the highway than he or she would for something he or she is entitled to expect would not be there.</i>
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
My date is May 4th and I am defending myself with no previous court experience. I know I will be at the table to the left. Do I let the prosecutor and/or JP lead the case? I have no independent witnesses, but I am assuming the officer and the 2 others involved in the accident will be witnesses. Do I interview them first or the prosecutor? In closing statements can I summarize why I think I am not guilty or do I need to do that on the stand and defend myself. Does that leave me open to self incrimination? Oh so many questions with all sorts of associated stress and anxiety. Will be glad to get this overwith so I can sleep peacefully again.
My date is May 4th and I am defending myself with no previous court experience. I know I will be at the table to the left. Do I let the prosecutor and/or JP lead the case? I have no independent witnesses, but I am assuming the officer and the 2 others involved in the accident will be witnesses. Do I interview them first or the prosecutor? In closing statements can I summarize why I think I am not guilty or do I need to do that on the stand and defend myself. Does that leave me open to self incrimination? Oh so many questions with all sorts of associated stress and anxiety. Will be glad to get this overwith so I can sleep peacefully again.
The best suggestion I have is that, if you have any time between now and then, go over to the courthouse and observe a few trials. It is free of charge (except for parking). This will give you an idea of the procedure/protocols. For the day of trial, show up early and check in with the Prosecutor, who may offer you a deal. Trials are usually held last. They'll deal with plea-bargains and withdrawn charges first, then they'll handle trials. They'll "arraign" you, saying "you are charged on or about the (whatever date) with the offence of follow too closely blah blah blah, how do you plead?" That part is easy. Then the Crown will present their case. You may cross-examine each of the witnesses as required. You may take the stand to defend yourself if you wish. The JP will ask you some questions for clarity, and the Crown will cross-examine you, or you can present your defence in closing arguments. That avoids having to testify. You have a Charter right to not incriminate yourself. A rear-end collision is not "prima facie" evidence of following too closely. You can admit you rear-ended another vehicle but that does not necessarily mean you were following too closely.... if this is the same offence as under "follow too closely." (Note: If this is the same offence, I'm going to merge this thread with the one you started originally to keep the topic in one place.)
The best suggestion I have is that, if you have any time between now and then, go over to the courthouse and observe a few trials. It is free of charge (except for parking). This will give you an idea of the procedure/protocols.
For the day of trial, show up early and check in with the Prosecutor, who may offer you a deal. Trials are usually held last. They'll deal with plea-bargains and withdrawn charges first, then they'll handle trials.
They'll "arraign" you, saying "you are charged on or about the (whatever date) with the offence of follow too closely blah blah blah, how do you plead?" That part is easy. Then the Crown will present their case. You may cross-examine each of the witnesses as required.
You may take the stand to defend yourself if you wish. The JP will ask you some questions for clarity, and the Crown will cross-examine you, or you can present your defence in closing arguments. That avoids having to testify.
You have a Charter right to not incriminate yourself. A rear-end collision is not "prima facie" evidence of following too closely. You can admit you rear-ended another vehicle but that does not necessarily mean you were following too closely.... if this is the same offence as under "follow too closely."
(Note: If this is the same offence, I'm going to merge this thread with the one you started originally to keep the topic in one place.)
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
I am in London & have an actual appointment with a time frame of 45 mins. Is this not customary? They go first and if I don't agree with what they have to say I can reword questions to lead them in another direction? Only information from the disclosure is admissible? I can object if it's not found in the disclosure? How does one decide whether it is necessary to take the stand in their defense? I was planning on revealing why I think I am not guilty in closing arguements. I am using the fact that neither driver saw me and that they were stopped at the time which to me indicates the inability to follow something not moving. Also the distraction of the previous accident to me explains the "reasonable and prudent" portion. Thank you for clarifying things for me you have been a wealth of information & this is exactly what I have been looking for. Although I am not looking forward to it, I am feeling a bit more confident about my trial.
Trials are usually held last.
I am in London & have an actual appointment with a time frame of 45 mins. Is this not customary?
Then the Crown will present their case. You may cross-examine each of the witnesses as required.
They go first and if I don't agree with what they have to say I can reword questions to lead them in another direction? Only information from the disclosure is admissible? I can object if it's not found in the disclosure?
You may take the stand to defend yourself if you wish.
How does one decide whether it is necessary to take the stand in their defense? I was planning on revealing why I think I am not guilty in closing arguements.
I am using the fact that neither driver saw me and that they were stopped at the time which to me indicates the inability to follow something not moving. Also the distraction of the previous accident to me explains the "reasonable and prudent" portion.
Thank you for clarifying things for me you have been a wealth of information & this is exactly what I have been looking for. Although I am not looking forward to it, I am feeling a bit more confident about my trial.
They usually schedule several people for that "time frame," depending on how the court handles things and their workload. They can admit information beyond what is in disclosure. You can object if the "new" information is significant, would have a real impact on your ability to offer a complete answer and defence, and if you had no reasonable way of knowing about it. Given the circumstances, it's highly unlikely that any sort of evidence like that would exist. Witness testimony, officer testimony, etc., all of that could reasonably be inferred from the collision report and officer's notes. If there is a substantial deviation from the information you were given, that would best be used during cross-examination, trying to show the witness is not credible. As far as not agreeing with what has been said, take notes, think of questions to ask that will introduce reasonable doubt that you were not following too closely. If you need to give a different perspective on what happened, then you'd testify. Example: Driver says you were tailgating him, then he stopped slowly and you hit him... but instead, you came around a bend, got distracted by something, he was stopped with his lights shut off at night, and you hit him. That would be a reason to testify (meaning you weren't actually following him, but came upon him when he was stopped). Use your best judgment at the time. Remember, though, your closing arguments are not subject to cross-examination by the Crown - only rebuttal. If you testify, you WILL be cross-examined. If you believe that the Crown and the testimony of the witnesses is not sufficient for a conviction, and you can rebut it by referring to case law, statutes, etc., then there is no need to testify. Keep in mind all of the case law that is out there. They have to show that you were following at an unsafe distance. As has been discussed above, this is not so easily done, even with a rear-end collision. Also, the standard stuff applies: Bow went entering/exiting the courtroom as a sign of respect, dress for the occasion, etc. Provincial offences courts deal with (for lack of a better expression) a lot of punks and rednecks, so if you go in there looking and acting like a respectable member of society, it will have some impact. Sounds so obvious as to be ridiculous but it's true.
Bluegirl wrote:
I am in London & have an actual appointment with a time frame of 45 mins. Is this not customary?
They usually schedule several people for that "time frame," depending on how the court handles things and their workload.
Bluegirl wrote:
They go first and if I don't agree with what they have to say I can reword questions to lead them in another direction? Only information from the disclosure is admissible? I can object if it's not found in the disclosure?
They can admit information beyond what is in disclosure. You can object if the "new" information is significant, would have a real impact on your ability to offer a complete answer and defence, and if you had no reasonable way of knowing about it. Given the circumstances, it's highly unlikely that any sort of evidence like that would exist. Witness testimony, officer testimony, etc., all of that could reasonably be inferred from the collision report and officer's notes. If there is a substantial deviation from the information you were given, that would best be used during cross-examination, trying to show the witness is not credible.
As far as not agreeing with what has been said, take notes, think of questions to ask that will introduce reasonable doubt that you were not following too closely.
Bluegirl wrote:
How does one decide whether it is necessary to take the stand in their defense? I was planning on revealing why I think I am not guilty in closing arguements.
If you need to give a different perspective on what happened, then you'd testify. Example: Driver says you were tailgating him, then he stopped slowly and you hit him... but instead, you came around a bend, got distracted by something, he was stopped with his lights shut off at night, and you hit him. That would be a reason to testify (meaning you weren't actually following him, but came upon him when he was stopped). Use your best judgment at the time. Remember, though, your closing arguments are not subject to cross-examination by the Crown - only rebuttal. If you testify, you WILL be cross-examined.
If you believe that the Crown and the testimony of the witnesses is not sufficient for a conviction, and you can rebut it by referring to case law, statutes, etc., then there is no need to testify. Keep in mind all of the case law that is out there. They have to show that you were following at an unsafe distance. As has been discussed above, this is not so easily done, even with a rear-end collision.
Also, the standard stuff applies: Bow went entering/exiting the courtroom as a sign of respect, dress for the occasion, etc. Provincial offences courts deal with (for lack of a better expression) a lot of punks and rednecks, so if you go in there looking and acting like a respectable member of society, it will have some impact. Sounds so obvious as to be ridiculous but it's true.
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
I got ticket for failing to stop at stop sign in Toronto. i heard that the police officer must see the stop line, if there is one, from where he was sitting. That is exactly my case, Is it a strong case? If so do i need a picture to show that there is a stop line and a picture to show that he could not see the stop line from where he was sitting?
I got a ticket, Disobey stop sign, sec 136.1.a on dec 6th
I made a left in an intersection and was pulled over by a police officer in an unmarked car who had been sitting down the road. A classic fishing hole situation. I was genuinely surprised when he stopped me and told me I went through a stop sign without even slowing down. I know to shut up and be polite and take the ticket. I…
Yesterday morning, I rear-ended someone. I was going the speed limit. The sun was directly in front of me and it blinded my windshield and my eyes. At the same time, the person in front of me stopped/slowed down (also due to the sun). I started to slow down but didn't stop and I hit them since I couldn't see anything. I was not driving too close initially. I…
I was driving in the county at night and hit a limousine stretched out side ways across the road. The limo had its lights on and had side lighting as well. The police officer charged me with careless driving because it was "fully lit up".
It took me to the next day to figure out what had happened - what I remember made no sense. What I had run across was a "false visual reference" illusion.
I was on hwy 37 trying to make my girlfriends ganadmas mass and I live an hour away and I had an hour to get there so I was going fast but not 50 over untill some idiot got on my tail soo close that I was to concentrated on him that I kept going faster untill I got pulled over at 147 on an 80 km hwy.
I alreaddy lost 3 points and this time was just the…
Hello, got stopped today for rolling a stop sign. Ticket says failure to stop, but quotes hta 1361b.
Doesn't 1361b mean failure to yield?
Is this a fatal error? Or could it be amended at trial. How can I prepare a defence if I don't know if I'm defending the failure to stop or the failure to yield?
After he was providing me with a ticket for failure to obey to the stop sign (I am pretty sure I stopped but less than 3 seconds recommended by my driver ed. instructor), I know everybody say that..as an excuse.
Then he stopped me again to return the documents.
Any advice and feed back would be really appreciated.
Can you get evidence for whether someone had an advanced green at an intersection? My dad was making a right turn on a red (after stopping) into a plaza parking lot. He got hit by someone making a left turn from the opposite lane. The driver told the officer called to the collision that he had an advance green. My dad said he came out of nowhere which makes me…
So i was driving on Eglinton Avenue East near Rosemount Ave.
The school bus was on the the curb on the opposite side of the road while i was travelling on the middle lane of the three-laned Eglinton Avenue East (five lanes apart plus a raised median island seperating the traffic)
I could not see the school bus as my view of the bus was being obstructed by the cars in front of me and on my left hand…
Lots of good information on getting disclosure from the Crown here.
Now, I am just wondering if I will be relying upon evidence of my own at trial... do I have to voluntarily send this material to the Crown in a reasonable time before the trial, or only if they request disclosure from me?
This morning I had an exam for university. I was studying the entire night and i wanted to catch like maybe 1-2 hours of sleep before the exam so i went to sleep. I woke up like 5 hrs after and realize that I was about to miss my exam. I still could have made it so I asked my dad for his car since I was in a huge rush and he gave it to me.
I went on the highway and I was going at 135 km/h but…
the police officer was in in the opesite oncumming lane he was fallowing another car so close that i was not even able to see his cruser till he was buy he said that i was going 111 in a 80 he said he hade me on radar he only asked for me drivers licencs and never asked for my insurence so on the ticket there no insurence dose enyone think i can beat this i wana take it to cort becuse he was…
Hi I have a couple questions so I'll explain my situation and any advice would be appreciated.
Can't remember exact date so lets call it some time in 2008 I got a fine for $5000.00 for driving without in insurance. I never paid the fine and in 2012 I was pulled over and the officer asked to see my license. Although I had it on me I figured it would be under suspension for the unpaid fine from…
Alright, so I did something really stupid the other day, I was driving down a country road and wanted to hit the curves so I passed 3 cars at once, inadvertently making it up to very much past 50 over (80 limit)... Much to my chagrin there was a cop coming in the opposite direction who immediately skidded on the gravel shoulder and who I thought was 100% going to turn around and pull me over,…
Anyone know how backed this courthouse is? I submitted my ticket for trial at the end of August, and still no letter. Im scared it got lost in the mail, can i call the courthouse and find out my courtdate? Or would i have to go in personally?
I recently received a ticket for failure to use low beams - while following - Ticket was issued Sec 168 (
- it was on the 401 and no one was within 500 meters of me, I was warning a oncoming vehicle that there was an officer hiding (which is not illegal or I could not find a law against it) it was a police vehicle travelling at very high rate of speed in the opposite direction with no lights on…
I received a warning letter from MTO for a 2pts ticket.What happened is that the police officer issued a "unsafe left turn" and then changed the ticket to "failed to signal" at the scene, but she submitted both tickets!!! And I !!!ONLY!!! received the latter ticket from her(I requested trial for "failed to signal"). I recently received notice from MTO that I'm convicted for "unsafe left turn".
Hello everyone! I was given a ticket for using a hand-held communication device while driving. It was 3 am, I was at a stop light and the cop saw me with the my phone in my hand. I told him i was just checking the time on it. I received the notes a few weeks ago ill copy them down below. Any help is appreciated although i believe there's no hope for me. The cop recorded me saying what phone i…
I got pulled over about 15 or so days ago the court till this date has not received the summons what is the legal time period that the court has to follow to accept the summons from the office court says its 15 days is the legal timeframe the officer has to serve it on the court
I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
Last Friday I was pulled over by an OPP motorcycle cop who informed me I was going 134. I was on the SB 404, I did see him parked under a bridge and when I passed him he was not on his bike.
I'm hoping to get some insight for a defense in this case.
I was in lane 1 and I had a car in front of me, and a car behind me, also there was a car speeding down Lane 3 passing everyone and moved quickly into…
