Could I fight a speeding ticket as a strict liability?

I got a speeding ticket for going 65 km in a posted 50 km. It was in a small village outside the GTA, on the main street. I turned on to the main street from a country road. The signs that showed that the speed limit dropped from 80 to 50km were further outside the village than where the country road joined the main street, so you had no idea of the drop in speed limit. That section of road where the contry road joins the main street still looks very much like a rural road with an implied limit of 80km.

It looks like a classic speed trap where the police do radar right in the middle of the village in front of the 50km sign, which happens to be the first sign you see if you take the route I took.

What I did is I went back to the village and I drove the same route as that day and observed that the signage is poor and could lead drivers to make the same mistake I did. I sent an email to Durham region, they sent out an inspector, he agreed with me and Durham region has installed 3 new signs in the village that I reccommended. I said they need another 50km sign between the counrty road and the village, and an eastbound and west bound "school zone" sign. I have this all documented through email.

Given these facts, could I argue that I did everything that a reasonable person would do, but the signage was poor, and it has been changed at my suggestion?

I imagine I have a good arguement, and rather than opening the door to more people argueing that speeding is a strict liability in certain cases, they might just throw it out?

I have a "Plan B" defence prepared based on the police cruiser being to far back from the road to accurately do radar for eastbound traffic, vector angle being too great, houses and vegitation blocking the view of the road. I took pictures of where the car was parked, pictures of the view out the window of the car, etc and printed them out as 8.5x11 inch photos.

Suggestions welcome

Unfortunately even if you exercised due diligence, the offence remains one of absolute liability. Exercising due diligence doesnt make it a strict liability matter, its simply what the Courts/Legislation have determined it to be. All the case law for speeding have shown it to be an absolute liability offence.

To be clear, speeding less than 50 km/hr over the limit is absolute liability. Speeding more than 50 km/hr over the limit is strict liability. This area is ripe for a constitutional challenge. If you have $10,000 or $20,000 you could do it

has anyone successfully used 'due diligence' against a s172 charge? i have an example of an epic fail attempt:

R. v. Anghel, 2010 ONCJ 652 (CanLII): http://canlii.ca/t/2fg2d

Mr. Anghel gave evidence that he believed he was travelling at a speed of perhaps 127 kilometres an hour. He based that belief on his speedometer reading and also his GPS unit. He acknowledged that he did not know if the GPS unit was capable of giving an accurate speed measurement, he did not give any evidence of having his speedometer checked for accuracy. He also acknowledged that his speed could fluctuate up or down depending on the pressure he put on the accelerator but he believed that he did not go over 130 kilometres an hour at any time. Was his belief reasonable then? I am not satisfied that his belief that he at no time went over the rate of speed that would qualify as stunt driving was a reasonable one in the circumstances considering that he did not take steps to ensure the accuracy of the devices he was relying on and he knew or should have known that his speed would not remain constant but would fluctuate depending on the terrain and his pressure on the accelerator. Mr. Anghel was intentionally travelling at a rate of speed that he thought was very close to, but he hoped, not over 50 kilometres over the speed limit. He testified that there was no compelling reason, nothing forced him to speed and certainly nothing was forcing him to travel at such a high rate of speed. It would be ludicrous to suggest that he was exercising due diligence in that situation. I am not satisfied that any defence to this charge has been made out and there will be a conviction for the offence of stunt driving, contrary to section 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

How far apart where the signs?

Under section 128:

"By-laws, regulations effective when posted

(11) No by-law passed under this section or regulation made under clause (7) (c) becomes effective until the highway or portion of it affected by the by-law or regulation, as the case may be, is signed in accordance with this Act and the regulations. 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 17 (5)."

"2. (1) Subject to section 4, where a maximum rate of speed other than that prescribed by subsection 128 (1) of the Act is prescribed for a highway in a local municipality or built-up area, speed limit signs shall be erected on the highway, in each direction of travel,

(a) not more than 600 metres apart where the speed limit prescribed is 60 kilometres per hour or less; and

(b) not more than 900 metres apart where the speed limit prescribed is greater than 60 kilometres per hour and not more than 70 kilometres per hour. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 615, s. 2 (1); O. Reg. 175/08, s. 1.

(2) Where the maximum rate of speed for a highway in a built-up area more than 1,500 metres in length is that prescribed by subsection 128 (1) of the Act, speed limit signs shall be erected on the highway not more than 900 metres apart. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 615, s. 2 (2).

(3) Where the maximum rate of speed for a highway in a built-up area 1,500 metres or less in length is that prescribed by subsection 128 (1) of the Act, speed limit signs shall be erected on the highway not more than 300 metres apart. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 615, s. 2 (3)."

Durham Region added another sign, which implies admission that the existing signage did not meet the regulations. If so, the speed regulating by-law was not in effect at the time you were ticketed and the speed limit reverts to the stipulations of 128(1). The speed limit is still 50kph if the area meets the definition of "built up area".

"built-up area" means a territory contiguous to a highway not within a local municipality, other than a local municipality that had the status of a township on December 31, 2002 and, but for the enactment of the Municipal Act, 2001, would have had the status of a township on January 1, 2003, where,

(a) not less than 50 per cent of the frontage upon one side of the highway for a distance of not less than 200 metres is occupied by dwellings, buildings used for business purposes, schools or churches,

(b) not less than 50 per cent of the frontage upon both sides of the highway for a distance of not less than 100 metres is occupied by dwellings, buildings used for business purposes, schools or churches, or

(c) not more than 200 metres of the highway separates any territory described in clause (a) or (b) from any other territory described in clause (a) or (b),

and signs are displayed as required by the regulations; ("agglom©ration")"

Or is in a municipality that was not a township prior to January 1 2003 and is not proscribed in Regulation 619. But the prosecution would have to prove one of those cases apply.

with the trace of emails, present them to the prosecutor ahead of time

Heynow999 wrote:

I have a "Plan B" defence prepared based on the police cruiser being to far back from the road to accurately do radar for eastbound traffic, vector angle being too great, houses and vegitation blocking the view of the road. I took pictures of where the car was parked, pictures of the view out the window of the car, etc and printed them out as 8.5x11 inch photos.

vector angle - inaccurate, it is called the cosine affect, to which the greater the cosine angle, the lower the reading on your vehicle, so is in your favour. Picture of view out your personal car will not be accurate as to that fficers view, height of car, curvature of vehicle frame, roof, height of seat, seating position of officer, all will not be the same as the "photo". Often use those items (house/vegetation/snow bank etc..) to our their advantage, place themselves to they can actually see past them, but is very minimal being seen approaching.

In winter someone I know might have been known to park behind a snowbank then shovel off the top, level with driver's door

Simon Borys wrote:

To be clear, speeding less than 50 km/hr over the limit is absolute liability. Speeding more than 50 km/hr over the limit is strict liability. This area is ripe for a constitutional challenge. If you have $10,000 or $20,000 you could do it

Is speeding 50+ strict liability? Or simply the related stunt driving charge? I was under the impression it was the latter, while the actual offence under section 128 remained absolute liability.

hwybear wrote:

In winter someone I know might have been known to park behind a snowbank then shovel off the top, level with driver's door

Almost worked except I saw the light deck on the roof...

Stanton wrote:

Is speeding 50+ strict liability? Or simply the related stunt driving charge?

My understanding is that Stunt Driving - speeding 50 km/h or more is strict liability (s 172) but Speeding 50 km/h over the limit under s. 128 is absolute liability... Haven't been doing much court observation recently but I've seen use of the s. 128 for 50 over increasing in the GTA... might also just be the cases I was watching...

Speeding, to wit more than 50 km/hr over the limit is absolute liability, just like speeding under 50 km over the limit. Stunt driving going more than 50 over the limit is an strict liability offence per R v Raham. No, that doesn't make sense. This is ripe for a constitutional challenge to bring the 2 offences in line one way or the other.