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
Am really confused about this one, this morning i got a reduced speeding ticket (80km speed in 60 zone), and in the ticket the cop wrote 10km over the speeding limit.. and it has the 'R' code in it.. and the cop said i need to pay this and it doesn't have any points on it..
im fine with paying the ticket which is only 40 dollars but my biggest concern, will it show in my record ? or only tickets…
I got a ticket for driving with handheld device in Oct 2015 and I had requested for a trial. Yesterday I received the notice of trial (notice is dated 26-Jan-2017, court of trial is Newmarket, ON) and trial date is Mar 8, 2017. Today, I have sent in a registered request for disclosure (i.e on 29-Jan-2017).
Need some help here for the 1st time speeding ticket?
Sunday morning 12:10am when I was going home from work I was doing bit speeding on Gardiner. I was going with about 130km/h. I know its fast. I always take the same way and I know where the cops hide. They always hide entrance of the highways. If I will do speeding I always look my back and did look this time too. I took gardiner…
I just have a question in regards to the summons Under Part 1 I received for an rear end accident:
I was driving on the 2 lane road, and the car in front of me suddenly stopped, I had seen the car, and so I started to brake, however I heard noise from the back and looked int o the rear view mirror and saw a huge "truck" so I decided to go right, took the feet out of brakes but couldnt…
I have searched and I know the general rule is no, barring criminal charges or tresspassing. So let me use 2 specific issues I have.
1) I have some business in some area malls after hours. Once I have pulled into the mall lot on the way to the closest door I rarely stop at stop signs unless there is a car or person nearby. (i do not carelessly speed, i do show caution, just do not fully stop) Can…
In June at 401 London and Wellington I got hit twice, speeding which I didn't realize I was doing and cell phone. The Officer made me open my purse and show him my phone. I was going to meet a Rep of my Company in Kitchener, he called I answered. WRONG! The Officer wasn't even nice. My record was clean and he slapped me twice. I sat in the car and sobbed for 20 minutes as I was scared out of…
I wanted to "reply" elsewhere...but the more appropriate areas were "locked" to replies....so, here are a couple of questions...from a newbie to this site:
1. Who ARE you? (I'm a little edgy about conversing on a forum whose ownership is not stated anywhere on an "About" page") No offense intended whatsoever. Just like to know who I'm talking with/in front of.......your honor!
You are coming off of a highway exit and there are 3 lanes: right hand lane for right hand turn; middle lane for left AND right turn (but no straight thru since it is only a three-way intersection); and left lane for left hand turn. You are first in the middle lane, signalling to make a right.
CAN YOU make a right hand turn from the middle lane on a red if the traffic is clear?
Hey everyone first off I'd like to say great website, I have been reading and it is very useful
I'm posting today as I'd like to get some feedback on my situation and have a couple of questions. Please excuse the vagueness in some areas - I don't want my case to be identifiable given the small town.
So I was driving up north and was pulled over by an OPP SUV for doing 31 over. Cop drove past me,…
Hello! I'm under 16 currently and really want to drive. I know that section 37(1) says you have to be 16, but I've read that the HTA does not apply when you are in private property, so does that mean I can drive in a parking lot if I wanted to?
I was heading northbound on my bike downtown on friday. After the east/westbound lights went red and after a long pause I decided to get a head start and proceed before the light changed to green. About a block north of me an officer stepped out of an unmarked cruiser and pulled me over and gave me a $180 ticket. Now I see on this site that I should have been given points for it..but…
Got a ticket Saturday for insecure load. The officer was a real jerk and unfair. I had nothing hanging out the sides and the load wasn't that high. Just taking some junk to the dump. I was doing 40 on Ashley St in Foxboro, 4 ways on taking my time and nothing was going to fall out. I'm thinking about fighting it. Anyone experienced this before?
So I got convicted of a dui.. I have been riding my bike in the snow and taking the bus. I am a driving enthusiast and I will be going to the race track all summer but I NEED to drive something right now!
I have done lots of research and even an electric assisted bike that a 16 year old can drive legally on the road is not an option to someone with a dui suspension.
Hey this is my first ticket so as much information that people can provide will be appreciated. I was making the drive home going around 90kph(in a 80) behind what I knew was an undercover police car. The cop abruptly pulled to the side and pulled back in behind me to pull me over. Now I reduced my speed to below 80 when the cop pulled to the side but he claimed he had me clocked at 109kph and…
So I was heading home to today and I was in the left lane of the off ramp, some lady cut across her lane of traffic and across the off ramp median and hit the back side of my car! After a few meters of bumping (I was dazed and confused) I stopped the car.
I call 911 and was told to move the car to the shoulder.
Cop comes, interviews both of us, and lets the lady go! The cop proceeds to give…
An undercover cop, well not sure if he was even a cop to be honest, maybe a constable pulled me over after I passed him shortly after a construction zone. He asked me if I was in a rush and said that he was going 105 and I was going 120. It seems mostly from our conversation that he was pissed off that I passed him, because he never told me that I was speeding. None the less the ticket says…
I got this ticket last year in toronto and received court date recently.
Basically I parket on a street where there are marked spots for car parking but they were all faded with only the white edges showing. I assumed I was in the correct spot when I got out. I never noticed the fire hydrant in the bushes.
When I returned I saw the ticket and then noticed the fire hydrant and when I to the…
I would like to know if anybody could tell me what "V" stands for on the Code section of the Form 4. I think that it will be useful to understand what information is on this form in order to make a decision on what option we should chose.
I recently received a ticket for red light fail to stop under section 144 (18) of the Highway Traffic Act at the intersection of Dupont St. and Dufferin St. in Toronto with a set fine of $150 and total payable of $190. I think I entered the intersection on a yellow, however that is not the way the officer saw it. During the traffic stop the officer was polite bordering on friendly…
Got my first ticket last Thursday and I have a couple of questions. I was driving westbound on Moore St. (west of Bayview) and made a left onto a residential street at a 4-way stop sign. It was my first time driving through that area - was driving my girlfriend to a wisdom tooth surgery.
The police were set up to catch people, as that intersection had a no left turn sign from 7-9 am (buses…
