Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

Ontario Highway Traffic Act

Discuss the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.


Post Your Traffic Ticket, and Get Help!


The Ontario Traffic Ticket Forum!


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Check It Out
No unread posts New Set Fines Starting Sept 1st, 2015! Read and Learn Here.
  Print view

Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:09 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Posts: 2933
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!
alexo wrote:
More or less. Cop's notes say I "cut the corner". Interesting since he arrived an hour after the fact..


Does not really matter how long after that the police arrive. Once arriving the officer will begin by talking to drivers, looking at physical evidence etc and try to determine what heppened. Then mandatory to complete a "Traffic Collision Report", and make notes when necessary to "refresh" the officers memory.

_________________
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:49 am 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:37 am
Posts: 22
Location: Ontario
Thanks for your reply hwybear.
hwybear wrote:
I would be guess that HTA 148 applies to the description provided.

Passing meeting vehicles - vehicle on highway meeting another shall turn out to the right from centre of roadway, allowing the other vehicle one-half of the roadway

That sounds about right.
However, I was charged with violating 142(1) and not 148.

I believe that the best strategy would be to contest it on that grounds.
What do you guys, think?

I do not think that they can amend it during the trial as that would be a completely different charge. Or could they?

Thank you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:53 am 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:37 am
Posts: 22
Location: Ontario
hwybear wrote:
alexo wrote:
More or less. Cop's notes say I "cut the corner". Interesting since he arrived an hour after the fact..


Does not really matter how long after that the police arrive. Once arriving the officer will begin by talking to drivers, looking at physical evidence etc and try to determine what heppened. Then mandatory to complete a "Traffic Collision Report", and make notes when necessary to "refresh" the officers memory.

The interesting part is that the "Traffic Collision Report" I got on the spot (with the ticket) has quite a number of differences from the copy I got in the disclosure. That one was dated 6 months after the fact.

Do those reports have any legal significance or is it only the information on the ticket that counts?

Thank you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:15 pm 
Offline
Sr. Member

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:57 pm
Posts: 256
Location: Planet X
alexo wrote:
Thanks for your reply hwybear.
hwybear wrote:
I would be guess that HTA 148 applies to the description provided.

Passing meeting vehicles - vehicle on highway meeting another shall turn out to the right from centre of roadway, allowing the other vehicle one-half of the roadway

That sounds about right.
However, I was charged with violating 142(1) and not 148.

I believe that the best strategy would be to contest it on that grounds.
What do you guys, think?

I do not think that they can amend it during the trial as that would be a completely different charge. Or could they?

Thank you.


Yes the court can amend it.

You must also raise an objection to an information or certificate for a defect apparent on its face before you plead, and thereafter only by leave of the court.

Read the link below, ss. 34 and 90 in repect to amending and 36 in regards to objecting to a defect.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statut ... _e.htm#BK7

If you have a fatal error on a ticket; don't respond to it at all. The court cannot fix errors when you don't reply to it. If convicted despite the error, you can win it on appeal.

Courts can only fix errors when you request a trial.

_________________
Without Justice there's JUST US


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:32 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:37 am
Posts: 22
Location: Ontario
lawmen wrote:
alexo wrote:
However, I was charged with violating 142(1) and not 148.

I believe that the best strategy would be to contest it on that grounds.
What do you guys, think?

I do not think that they can amend it during the trial as that would be a completely different charge. Or could they?


Yes the court can amend it.

That seems wrong. I understand amending erroneous facts but changing the whole charge? "I'm sorry your worship, we'd like to amend the charge from trespassing to theft".

Wouldn't that run afoul of 34(4)(c) and (d)?

Quote:
Considerations on amendment
(4) The court shall, in considering whether or not an amendment should be made, consider,
(a) the evidence taken on the trial, if any;
(b) the circumstances of the case;
(c) whether the defendant has been misled or prejudiced in the defendant’s defence by a variance, error or omission; and
(d) whether, having regard to the merits of the case, the proposed amendment can be made without injustice being done.


lawmen wrote:
You must also raise an objection to an information or certificate for a defect apparent on its face before you plead, and thereafter only by leave of the court.

Read the link below, ss. 34 and 90 in respect to amending and 36 in regards to objecting to a defect.

That doesn't seem to be a defect but a different charge. Or am I wrong about it?

lawmen wrote:
If you have a fatal error on a ticket; don't respond to it at all. The court cannot fix errors when you don't reply to it. If convicted despite the error, you can win it on appeal.

Courts can only fix errors when you request a trial.

As I mentioned before, the trial date is almost upon me.

The way I see it, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that I got charged with an offence that I did not commit. Whether I committed a different offence or not is immaterial since I am not charged with it.

Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:18 pm 
Offline
Sr. Member

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:57 pm
Posts: 256
Location: Planet X
Changing the charge is a breach of our Charter rights. But the court still does it and no lawyer to my knowledge has challenged them on this constitutionally.

Is is afoul of 34 blah blah, but the court can also just give you an adjournment to come back another day with your new defence. It's pathetic.

See ss. 35 and 37.

To me, you were charged with the wrong offence, that's a defect. But now that you requested a trial, again, the court can fix the ticket.

When is your trial date?

_________________
Without Justice there's JUST US


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:41 pm 
Offline
Sr. Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 632
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Sure the Court COULD allow the ticket to be amended, but you would want to object to this. You have prepared your case based on the information shown on the charging document. Your court date is now and you are prepared to proceed. It is not your fault the crown is not prepared. As backup, you might want to have your lawyer print you out the case laws for:
R. v. Schepens, supra, note 69
R. v. Oakcrest Food Stores (1976) Ltd. (1982), 17 M.V.R. 103 (B.C.S.C.)
I don't have them personally but I have a book on HTA offences and it lists these cases under "Defects for which no correction was allowed... Failing to properly identify the offence the accused stands charged with".

You would present the case laws to the court at your trial. Very few JP's will rule AGAINST the rulings of a higher court.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:53 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:37 am
Posts: 22
Location: Ontario
Hi Bookm, thank you for the reply.
Bookm wrote:
Sure the Court COULD allow the ticket to be amended, but you would want to object to this. You have prepared your case based on the information shown on the charging document. Your court date is now and you are prepared to proceed. It is not your fault the crown is not prepared. As backup, you might want to have your lawyer print you out the case laws for:
R. v. Schepens, supra, note 69
R. v. Oakcrest Food Stores (1976) Ltd. (1982), 17 M.V.R. 103 (B.C.S.C.)
I don't have them personally but I have a book on HTA offences and it lists these cases under "Defects for which no correction was allowed... Failing to properly identify the offence the accused stands charged with".

Thanks for the cases, I'll look them up.
What's the name of the book?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:54 pm 
Offline
Sr. Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 632
Location: Stratford, Ontario
The Law of Traffic Offences, 2nd Edition


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:14 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Posts: 2933
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!
alexo wrote:
The interesting part is that the "Traffic Collision Report" I got on the spot (with the ticket) has quite a number of differences from the copy I got in the disclosure. That one was dated 6 months after the fact..


The roadside copy is just basic info to share amongst drivers, the submitted copy has diagrams, check boxes on the side, supervisor signature, if witness, towing info etc.

_________________
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:12 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:37 am
Posts: 22
Location: Ontario
hwybear wrote:
alexo wrote:
The interesting part is that the "Traffic Collision Report" I got on the spot (with the ticket) has quite a number of differences from the copy I got in the disclosure. That one was dated 6 months after the fact..


The roadside copy is just basic info to share amongst drivers, the submitted copy has diagrams, check boxes on the side, supervisor signature, if witness, towing info etc.

Is it normal procedure to file it half a year after the fact and invent some information (e.g., speed of vehicles)?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:43 pm 
Offline
Sr. Member

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:57 pm
Posts: 256
Location: Planet X
You'll nail him on these points when you examine and cross-examine him. You can get his notes from the exact day of the incident and compare them to what he wrote in the report 6 months later. When they don't match, his credibility will be worthless.

The cop laid the wrong charge, his notes and reports are bogus and yet the government wants to spend thousands of dollars on the cop, crown and justice to hear this case than cannot be won.

_________________
Without Justice there's JUST US


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:33 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Posts: 2933
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!
alexo wrote:
hwybear wrote:
alexo wrote:
The interesting part is that the "Traffic Collision Report" I got on the spot (with the ticket) has quite a number of differences from the copy I got in the disclosure. That one was dated 6 months after the fact..


The roadside copy is just basic info to share amongst drivers, the submitted copy has diagrams, check boxes on the side, supervisor signature, if witness, towing info etc.

Is it normal procedure to file it half a year after the fact and invent some information (e.g., speed of vehicles)?


About 3/4 way down is the officers signature and DATE to the right is the supervisor signature and DATE. How does this compare to the date of the collision at the top?

_________________
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:25 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:37 am
Posts: 22
Location: Ontario
Hello Bear,

hwybear wrote:
About 3/4 way down is the officers signature and DATE to the right is the supervisor signature and DATE. How does this compare to the date of the collision at the top?


The Officer's signature and date is 6 months after the "accident date"
The supervisor's signature & date are missing (not filled in).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 2:43 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Posts: 2933
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!
alexo wrote:
hwybear wrote:
About 3/4 way down is the officers signature and DATE to the right is the supervisor signature and DATE. How does this compare to the date of the collision at the top?


The Officer's signature and date is 6 months after the "accident date"
The supervisor's signature & date are missing (not filled in).


Don't understand what is happening then...sorry!

_________________
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Related topics
 Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Definition of 'highway'

[ Go to pageGo to page: 1, 2 ]

Squishy

18

5276

Thu Apr 16, 2009 1:44 am

401Driver View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Driver definition

CoolChick

10

4024

Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:14 pm

Frozenover View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. parking definition

drivingron

4

3841

Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:21 pm

Radar Identified View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. what is the definition of an intersection?

theraiser87

7

714

Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:19 am

viper1 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Definition of a U-Turn

Stanton

5

198

Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:58 pm

Markus View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. G1, G2, fully licensed definition

davesinibiza

7

6085

Wed May 18, 2011 7:56 am

hwybear View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. 142 (1) - Unsafe Right Turn

Perpalicious

0

3073

Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:40 pm

Perpalicious View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. HTA 142(1) and CAIA 3(1)

darshan.4

6

2517

Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:00 pm

Simon Borys View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Turn not in Safty 142(2)

Karrot

2

965

Thu Aug 21, 2014 5:39 pm

iFly55 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Disobey Sign HTA 182(2) What is the definition?

diggyj

4

3069

Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:28 pm

Neely2005 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Charged under wrong act??? 142 1

lestat

2

782

Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:32 am

Bookm View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Signalling turns and stops - Section 142

admin

0

8404

Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:10 am

admin View the latest post

 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Web Development & Search Engine Optimization
Home | Court Listings | Ontario Traffic Ticket

Copyright 2007 - 2017 © Microtekblue Inc. Web Development & Search Engine Optimization Service. We Support phpBB All Rights Reserved.