I got a ticket this morning while working (in a fleet vehicle). The ticket the police officer gave me was: No currently validated permit: section 7(1)(C) Ontario Highway Traffic Act.
The issue was there was only a photocopy of the permit in the vehicle. The company signed the permit after it was photocopied and the two validation stickers (actual stickers) were on the photocopy.
The police officer put the ticket under my name, address, etc. He explained he cannot put the ticket under the companies name, or somebody elses name from the company. Most likely the ticket will be paid by the company however, when it comes to insurance purposes, from what I heard a small ticket like this under my name is still a problem.
1) Should I fight the ticket due to insurance purposes? (assuming it will affect my insurance rating, since I have a clean record)
2) Did the police officer lie about having no choice about putting the ticket under my name instead of the companies name?
3) The police officer charged me under 7(1)(c) of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act:
7. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway unless, (c) evidence of the current validation of the permit is affixed, in the prescribed manner, to,
(i) one of the number plates mentioned in subclause (b) (i) displayed on the vehicle, or
(ii) to a mini-plate attached to the number plate exposed on the rear of the vehicle, if number plates described in subsection (7.2) are displayed on the vehicle. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 7 (1); 2000, c. 29, s. 1 (1).
Is this even the right section in regards to this situation? This act appears to focus on license plate infractions, not for the actual permit?
Anyone want to weight in on if a uncertified copy can be considered a true copy?
That being said, IÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢d certainly try an early resolution meeting with the Crown. Bring a proper true copy with you to show everything has been taken care of. ThereÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s no guarantee, but the Crown may be willing to simply withdraw the charge, especially since youÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢re not the owner of the vehicle.
Still, as some have stated, the HTA does not define the term "true copy" and therefore the interpretation rules must go in favour of the defendant. If the legislators wanted it to be notarized or certified by someone, they had to stipulate it in a clear manner. As alluded to in paragraph 13 of the Huxtable decision, the courts will try to interpret rules for POA matters in a way that they don't become "a trap for the unskilled and unwary."
A defendant can therefore rely upon the decision in R. v. Huxtable where Justice Ray (at paragraph 8 ) says that "Photocopies are acceptable if the person who made the copies testifies that they are true copies.". Keep in mind though that this decision is actually dealing with another section of the HTA, but J. Ray's comments should be able to persuade a JP.
Regardless, as others have said, I do not think YOUR copy is a true copy. Quite the opposite, it is actually being used as an original document since it actually has the validation stickers on your copy.
For it to be a 'true copy' it would have to be EXACTLY like the original. That is, the stickers would have to be on the original form, as well as the signatures. You can't simply alter the copy (which is what was done when it was signed and the stickers affixed to it!) and still claim it to be a copy of the original.