Definition of "lane" for 142(1)

Hello people,

HTA 142 (1) says:

The driver or operator of a vehicle upon a highway before turning to the left or right at any intersection or into a private road or driveway or from one lane for traffic to another lane for traffic ...

I could not find the legal definition of "lane" in the act.

Does it have to be marked?

Please help.

Tell us what happened to you?

I will guess that the answer is no. You would have to read the entire Act, all the regulations, find case law with other examples, and/or use a dictionary definition to find the correct answer, though.

A collision in a bend in the road.

The officer that arrived later decided to charge me with "turn not in safety" under 142(1).

My point is that 142(1) is not applicable as it is very specific about the turns and none of them is applicable to a bend in the road.

They may claim that my car protruded into the opposite line of traffic. However:

- The other sections of the HTA that mention lanes talk about "marked lanes" (141(2), 142(6)) "clearly marked lanes" (149(1), 154(1), 154.1(1), 154.2(1)), etc.

- Sections that deal with the absense of markings use the word "line" instead of "lane". E.g., 141(1)(a), 149(1), 150(1)(b)

So, yes, I've read the act.

I could not find any relevant case law that mentioned "lane" when one wasn't marked. In particular, all the cases I found on CanLII used "lane" when the same direction was implied.

In contrast, R. v. Smith 1996, R. v. Elias (D.J.) 2003, and others mention "centre line".

Also 186(1) mentions "left lane".

It is obvious that it talks about same-direction lanes (otherwise the left lane would be oncoming traffic)

Interesting case. Keep searching case law and you might find something to help you.

So, you're traveling on a road with no centre line and the cop claims you went into the oncoming lane of traffic while rounding a bend in the roadway and caused a collison?

If so, then you're right, the section yo were charged under does not apply.

Do you know how to fight this win?

Was there any injuries?

Hi lawmen, thanks for your reply.

lawmen wrote:

Interesting case. Keep searching case law and you might find something to help you.

Gladly but I feel I'm not getting any relevant info from CanLII.

Any suggestions where to look? Or maybe I'm searching incorrect terms?

lawmen wrote:

So, you're traveling on a road with no centre line and the cop claims you went into the oncoming lane of traffic while rounding a bend in the roadway and caused a collison?

More or less. Cop's notes say I "cut the corner". Interesting since he arrived an hour after the fact.

lawmen wrote:

If so, then you're right, the section yo were charged under does not apply.

Do you know how to fight this win?

I am not sure.

lawmen wrote:

Was there any injuries?

No, only damage to the cars. Other party panicked and called the police.

Try the Supreme Court of Canada for caselaw with respect to lanes.

When did you get the ticket?

Have you sent in the notice to defend yet?

I don't think the charge will stick as it doesn't apply, in my view, as you also mentioned.

This is not a case involving turning. I think he may've had to charge you with careless driving in such a case. But even that wouldn't stick.

lawmen wrote:

Try the Supreme Court of Canada for caselaw with respect to lanes.

Nothing relevant on csc.lexum.umontreal.ca

The only case I found that mentions an unmarked centre line, does not use the word "lane" (Armand v. Carr, [1926] S.C.R. 575)

No legal definition of "lane" was given but then, I did not expect the SC to concern itself with such issues.

lawmen wrote:

When did you get the ticket?

Have you sent in the notice to defend yet?

Quite a while ago. I am going to trial soon.

lawmen wrote:

I don't think the charge will stick as it doesn't apply, in my view, as you also mentioned.

This is not a case involving turning. I think he may've had to charge you with careless driving in such a case. But even that wouldn't stick.

That's what I thought, but I wanted to be sure.

I just have to find the best way to argue this.

Thank you.

Better question: What evidence did the officer have that you were in the wrong lane. What about the other driver???????

You got a case........keep digging.

This is really a great example to request disclosure including a request for an explanation and clarification of the charge. Let them do the work. They must bring home to the accused what he did wrong. You are asking "what did I do?" and "How are you going to prove it?"

ticketcombat wrote:

This is really a great example to request disclosure including a request for an explanation and clarification of the charge. Let them do the work. They must bring home to the accused what he did wrong. You are asking "what did I do?" and "How are you going to prove it?"

Unfortunately, it is a bit too late for that.

I won't go into too much details (representation gone wrong) but basically what I have now is disclosure (cop's notes, ticket and accident report), a trial in a couple of weeks and some research I managed to do.

I think I have a case but I'll be grateful for suggestions how to argue it.

I do appreciate all the help I'm getting on this forum (I wish I found it earlier). thank you!

You said there was no accident i.e., damage or injury?

lawmen wrote:

You said there was no accident i.e., damage or injury?

Did I? I'm sorry, English is not my native language and I am even less familiar with legal terms.

When I said "collision" I meant an accident.

There was no injury but there was damage to the vehicles.

Actually, it's my mistake. I just re-read the thread. You did say damage to the car, no injuries. Sorry.

The cop is clueless, or gave you a major break. The turn offence doesn't apply. You crossed into another lane, even though it has no lines. An accident occurred. In my opinion he had to charge you with careless driving, but he didn't.

Careless is not easy to prove. If you had a moment of distraction while driving, it is not careless driving. They must prove your driving was careless or reckless.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)?

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 defendants 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.

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?

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.

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?

The Law of Traffic Offences, 2nd Edition

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.

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)?

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.

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?

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).

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!