Desperate! PLEASE help!! Trial in 17 days!

Hi. I would be so grateful if someone could please advise me. I tried asking on another similar site a few days ago and got no response. I'm really desperate because my trial date is 17 days away (May 3) and I'm completely confused about what I should do. I've never had a ticket before. Please help me!!

The offence is disobeying a stop sign, charged at end of September 2012. I am almost 100% positive that I stopped. I filed immediately for a trial date and I only just received the trial notice a few days ago on Thursday, April 11. My trial is set for May 3. So my questions:

1. Given that the trial is less than 30 days away, do I still file for disclosure, even though it's not likely I'll get the info. in time for the trial??

2. Or do I file now to have the trial adjourned given the insufficient time to prepare for the trial?

3. If I do go ahead and request disclosure, should I say in the letter that due to the short trial notice, I'll be filing to adjourn if I don't get disclosure promptly??

4. How long after I file for disclosure do I file to adjourn? What is the deadline? Is it 15 days before the trial or 15 business days before??

5. Sorry, forgive my ignorance but is adjourning and staying the same thing?? If not, am I better off adjourning the trial or staying the proceedings??

Thank you so much in advance for any help that you can offer me!!!!!

ask for disclosure now.

show up and they may have it there for you.

ask for an adjournment so you can prepare.

Thank you avangel. I faxed my disclosure request today. So I can ask for an adjournment at the actual trial? I don't need to do this in advance?

Ariell wrote:

Thank you avangel. I faxed my disclosure request today. So I can ask for an adjournment at the actual trial? I don't need to do this in advance?

Realistically, you're probably not going to get your disclosure before the trial. There's just not enough days for them to process the request or for you to prepare. Neither side is at fault considering there's been 3 weeks. You can settle everything on your trial date.

Either they will go over the circumstances with the Justice and request a new date for trial, or they wont. Some prosecutors will offer you disclosure right then and there, tell you to read it over as quickly as possible, and that they will continue with the trial as usual. The prosecutor is going to say how your request for disclosure has been satisfied and they are ready to continue with the trial. You're going to politely argue to the Justice that you requested disclosure days after receiving your notice of trial and you are not ready to continue minutes after receiving disclosure as you haven't been given a fair chance at preparing. They will then give you a new date unless there's good reasoning to not consider your request. Be prepared for both scenarios.

bend wrote:

Realistically, you're probably not going to get your disclosure before the trial. There's just not enough days for them to process the request or for you to prepare. Neither side is at fault considering there's been 3 weeks. You can settle everything on your trial date.

Either they will go over the circumstances with the Justice and request a new date for trial, or they wont. Some prosecutors will offer you disclosure right then and there, tell you to read it over as quickly as possible, and that they will continue with the trial as usual. The prosecutor is going to say how your request for disclosure has been satisfied and they are ready to continue with the trial. You're going to politely argue to the Justice that you requested disclosure days after receiving your notice of trial and you are not ready to continue minutes after receiving disclosure as you haven't been given a fair chance at preparing. They will then give you a new date unless there's good reasoning to not consider your request. Be prepared for both scenarios.

Thank you so much bend. Sorry, do you mean there's a chance that the Justice will make me go ahead with the trial even if I've only been given disclosure a few minutes earlier?? That seems completely unfair. Doesn't that violate my right to a fair trial? What would be a good reason to not consider my request?

Ariell wrote:

Thank you so much bend. Sorry, do you mean there's a chance that the Justice will make me go ahead with the trial even if I've only been given disclosure a few minutes earlier?? That seems completely unfair. Doesn't that violate my right to a fair trial? What would be a good reason to not consider my request?

What I meant was be prepared for an adjournment, but also be prepared to push for one. You can easily get pushed into a trial if you don't make an argument. Some people just go with the motions and may end up in a trial right after reading their disclosure for the first time.

I don't see any reason why they wouldn't reschedule your date, so i wouldn't worry. You can relax.

Thanks very much bend!!

In case I do have to go ahead with my trial tomorrow, is there any advice that you can give me to defend myself?

This is a picture of the stop sign in question:

I am 99.9% positive that I stopped. I travel on that road almost weekly so am familiar with the area and I'm a very careful driver. I've never had a traffic ticket in 20+ years of driving. Also, as you can see, the sign is completely visible so there's no way that I could miss it.

The officer stopped me 3 blocks away and claimed that I didn't stop at the previous stop. He told me that neighbours have complained that people just drive through that stop. It was the end of the month so maybe he was just trying to get a certain quota?? It's a very quiet street with no one else around.

My questions:

1. Is the fact that there is no stop lign useful in my defence? i.e. if there's no lign, maybe the officer couldn't really tell that I stopped? (I have no idea where he was. I'm guessing on the side street to the left).

2. Is the fact that he stopped me several blocks away relevant? Is there any requirement that he stop me where the supposed offence took place?

Thanks in advance for any advice!

Ariell wrote:

It was the end of the month so maybe he was just trying to get a certain quota??

No. I'm quite sure the officer believes you didn't stop.

Ariell wrote:

1. Is the fact that there is no stop lign useful in my defence? i.e. if there's no lign, maybe the officer couldn't really tell that I stopped? (I have no idea where he was. I'm guessing on the side street to the left).

The officer should be able to tell if you stopped or not regardless of any line on the ground. You could try questioning them on their view of the intersection and seeing if they had a clear view of where youre required to stop when there is no line (which would be immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk, or if no crosswalk the nearest intersection).

Ariell wrote:

2. Is the fact that he stopped me several blocks away relevant? Is there any requirement that he stop me where the supposed offence took place?

This is pretty normal. Police will wait to stop a vehicle for any number of reasons, such as running licence plates, waiting for a safer location or just watching to see if the driver will commit any more offences. Unless the officer lost sight of your vehicle for an extended period of time and can't say the vehicle he stopped was the same one that went through the stop sign, it's not relevant to your defence.

The officer should be able to tell if you stopped or not regardless of any line on the ground. You could try questioning them on their view of the intersection and seeing if they had a clear view of where youre required to stop when there is no line (which would be immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk, or if no crosswalk the nearest intersection).

Thank you. I read section 136(1)(a) which says: "S. 136(1) Every driver or street car operator approaching a stop sign at an intersection,

(a) shall stop his or her vehicle or street car at a marked stop line or, if none, then immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk or, if none, then immediately before entering the intersection;"

I'm not sure if I'm interpreting it right, but does it mean that if there is no stop line (like in my case), then I don't need to stop at the stop sign??? So instead I just need to stop at the nearest crosswalk or if no crosswalk, then the nearest intersection??? That can't be right but isn't that how it's written or am I misunderstanding? And by the 'nearest intersection' does it mean the intersection where the stop sign is or the next intersection after that???

Ariell wrote:

I'm not sure if I'm interpreting it right, but does it mean that if there is no stop line (like in my case), then I don't need to stop at the stop sign??? So instead I just need to stop at the nearest crosswalk or if no crosswalk, then the nearest intersection??? That can't be right but isn't that how it's written or am I misunderstanding? And by the 'nearest intersection' does it mean the intersection where the stop sign is or the next intersection after that???

If there is no line, you stop before the sidewalk, whether it be on your left side or your right side. If there is no sidewalk, you stop at the edge of the intersection.

The picture doesn't show what's to your left, but if there is a sidewalk there, you'd stop before it. Either that or before the intersection.

The photo you posted doesnt show the intersection very clearly, but I can see a sidewalk meeting the road for oncoming traffic. Oncoming cars would be required to stop there. Can you tell us what the intersection is so we can see it in Street View?

It's the corner of Ernest Ave. and Edmonton Dr. in North York (M2J 3T4)

The crosswalk is well before the manhole cover seen in the lower right corner of your picture. You must stop immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk.

It's difficult to say based on Google street view alone, but I don't think the southbound stop sign is properly placed. It appears that it's actually in the intersection, when in fact it should be placed before the intersection. It's still quite visible and likely fully legal due to the double driveway making proper placement impracticable, but thought I'd mention it.

Decatur wrote:

The crosswalk is well before the manhole cover seen in the lower right corner of your picture. You must stop immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk.

?? There's no crosswalk. Do you mean the sidewalk on the left? Why would I have to stop before the sidewalk to the left? That's not the intersection.

Stanton wrote:

It's difficult to say based on Google street view alone, but I don't think the southbound stop sign is properly placed. It appears that it's actually in the intersection, when in fact it should be placed before the intersection. It's still quite visible and likely fully legal due to the double driveway making proper placement impracticable, but thought I'd mention it.

Thank you Stanton for pointing that out. I always just stop at the stop sign. So if I understand correctly, technically I should stop before the sidewalk to the left i.e. in the middle of the driveway to the right?? Is that what you mean? Would anyone actually do that and would the average person actually know that? I would have no idea. Maybe that's why he gave me the ticket -- because I stopped at the stop sign which is I guess based on what I've read here, technically in the intersection instead of before it??? Because I'm positive that I stopped.

So I went to court today and got an adjournment til end of June.

My intent all along for today was to get an adjournment but now I'm wondering if I made the wrong choice. Beforehand, the prosecutor offered everyone a reduced fine/points for pleading guilty. She offered me no points and a reduced fine which I said no to. To be honest, I was totally caught off guard by her offer because I wasn't expecting that to even be an option. Everything that I've read on different ticket fighting sites always talks about pushing for an adjournment. So I thought since I hadn't received disclosure that I should focus on that. I also thought only the fine could be reduced but not the points. I didn't realize the points could be dropped. But now I'm thinking I should have just taken the reduced fine and no points. Did I make the wrong choice??

The officer was there so I assume he'll show up next time. I got a copy of his notes where he claims that I slowed "to approx. 15-20 wpm continued SB without stopping". I still think that's wrong. He said that there is video available which I requested a copy of in the prosecutor's office. Not sure how long that should take to get. Also on the officer's notes it says "3380 parked WB on Ernest on Edmonton Dr. Stop sign enf." What does 3380 refer to? (It's not his officer number.) It doesn't say which side of the street he was on or where on Ernest he was so I have no idea what his visibility was like.

Any advice for next time? Do I go ahead and question him on his evidence or should I just accept an offer of no points if it's offered again? What if I don't get the video evidence? I'm confused!

Ariell wrote:

I also thought only the fine could be reduced but not the points. I didn't realize the points could be dropped. But now I'm thinking I should have just taken the reduced fine and no points. Did I make the wrong choice??

You are slightly confused here. The fine can be reduced, but they can't make the points disappear. They didn't drop the points. Points are calculated based on what you're being charged for. There were probably no points involved with the reduced fine they offered you. That's why there were no points involved. That being said, points are a ministry thing and not an insurance thing. The fact you would receive no points doesn't necessarily make a difference towards insurance. Your provider only cares about your convictions and doesn't care how many points you have. You can still see your insurance increase with zero points. Points are overrated. They stay on your record for 2 years from the day you were pulled over (clock is already ticking away in your case). They are unofficially reserved for 2 types of drivers, newly licensed and complete morons. Majority of drivers will never never accumulate enough points in a 2 year period for it to make any difference. The charge is what matters.

Did you make the wrong choice? I'd say no. You now have disclosure, and on top of that, you're going to receive video of the incident. You are more than likely going to receive the same plea deal again next time you show up, or at least something similar. I'd say you made a pretty good choice.

Ariell wrote:

Also on the officer's notes it says "3380 parked WB on Ernest on Edmonton Dr. Stop sign enf." What does 3380 refer to? (It's not his officer number.)

There are officers here who can answer this with complete certainly, but i'd guess it's the officers car number.

Ariell wrote:

Any advice for next time? Do I go ahead and question him on his evidence or should I just accept an offer of no points if it's offered again? What if I don't get the video evidence? I'm confused!

If they say there's video available, you'll get it. If you don't, you can try to make an argument in court.

Thanks again very much for clarifying things bend. So basically if I had have taken the prosecutor's deal, it would be reduced fine, no points but it would mean pleading guilty to failure to stop and that's what the insurance will care about, right?

You'd have to confirm what exactly you were pleading guilty to. If it was a local bylaw, it likely wouldn't appear on your driving abstract and wouldn't impact your insurance. If it's simply another HTA offence, then it will appear on your abstract and likely will impact your insurance.

Thanks very much Stanton. The prosecutor didn't say -- she just said reduced fine, no points so I don't know what it was. I will definitely ask next time if it's offered. Like I said, I wasn't expecting an offer so I was kind of taken aback when it was offered. They really try to rush you to get you to make a snap decision though.

The other thing that I thought I should mention for the benefit of anyone who has never been to court before like me is that the prosecutor really does try to intimidate you so just be prepared for that and stand your ground. When I turned down the offer and said that I wanted to adjourn because I didn't get disclosure, she condescendingly said, "Well, did you bother to ask for disclosure?" -- like I'm an idiot or something. When I told her that actually yes, I did and showed her the fax that I sent, she looked at the cover sheet and claimed that it was the wrong fax number. So of course now I'm completely panicked, thinking I had sent the disclosure request to the wrong place and that they had never received it and am frantically looking through the papers I brought with me to check the fax number. At the same time, she started quickly rifling through the stack of disclosure requests that she had to show that they didn't receive it, complaining also that I had sent it late. I explained that the trial notice was sent late and that I had sent my disclosure request days after getting the trial notice. Luckily, as she was quickly flipping through the pages, I saw my disclosure request and stopped her. I get that prosecutors have to do this hundreds of times a week and I'm sure they have to put up with alot of BS but they should also realize that for someone who has never been to court before, the process is confusing and nervewracking and they don't have to make it worse by trying to intimidate you. I can only imagine what the process is like for someone that doesn't have a good command of English.