No Squishy it was proposed with the title STREET RACING to sell it to the public! O.P.P Constable Tapp was charged under HTA 172, minus the impoundment of the police vehicle and found innocent AFTER his day in court! Did the Officer that laid the charges make a mistake or did she lie? Or did Constable Tapp lie or did he misread his speedo? Will one of them make the same mistake when they pull over the next DAMN STREET RACER? I wrote Julian Fantino letter asking him the same questions, to my surprise I never recieved any response, maybe he's just to busy excersing his right to Due Process with his own legal battles. Maybe you can get response from him! Commissioner Fantino, 3rd floor, 777 Memorial Avenue, Orillia, Ontario, L3V 7V3.
Squishy wrote:
Looks like the proposal for 172 was purely to address racing, not speeding/stunting. Maybe the media shouldn't get the blame - but it's stupid how people want to argue semantics. Trying to argue that, "There was only one car! How can that be RACING?!" as if that would get the charge thrown out.
Is it dangerous to do any of the actions classified as stunting or racing by the HTA? Yes it is. So don't do it and no one will have to worry about the consequences. With all the media coverage this has gotten, I'd say 90%, if not 100%, of the province's drivers know of 172. If someone knows the consequences but chooses to break that law anyways, they deserve what they get.
No Squishy it was proposed with the title STREET RACING to sell it to the public!
O.P.P Constable Tapp was charged under HTA 172, minus the impoundment of the police vehicle and found innocent AFTER his day in court!
Did the Officer that laid the charges make a mistake or did she lie?
Or did Constable Tapp lie or did he misread his speedo?
Will one of them make the same mistake when they pull over the next DAMN STREET RACER?
I wrote Julian Fantino letter asking him the same questions, to my surprise I never recieved any response, maybe he's just to busy excersing his right to Due Process with his own legal battles.
And that's the problem with people disregarding this law just because they don't agree with it. If you continue to violate 172, then a lot more valid cases will make it to court. The lies/mistakes will get lost in all the cases that do result in a conviction. If people stayed within the law and then pointed out, "Hey, most of these 172 tickets don't result in convictions," then it's a lot more likely that 172 will be rewritten. Same with the speed limits. Just disregarding it and speeding isn't going to solve the problem. If everyone drove at the limit, then we would know whether or not 100 km/h is appropriate. I have been on heavily patrolled interstates where the majority of drivers are under or at the speed limit of 60 - they don't seem to have a problem with it.
And that's the problem with people disregarding this law just because they don't agree with it. If you continue to violate 172, then a lot more valid cases will make it to court. The lies/mistakes will get lost in all the cases that do result in a conviction. If people stayed within the law and then pointed out, "Hey, most of these 172 tickets don't result in convictions," then it's a lot more likely that 172 will be rewritten. Same with the speed limits. Just disregarding it and speeding isn't going to solve the problem. If everyone drove at the limit, then we would know whether or not 100 km/h is appropriate. I have been on heavily patrolled interstates where the majority of drivers are under or at the speed limit of 60 - they don't seem to have a problem with it.
The thing that's being disregard is the CANADIAN CHARTER of RIGHTS YOU"RE GUILTY until proven innocent! And even after being found INNOCENT, you're STILL on the HOOK FOR all FEES! No sense in beating a dead horse!
The thing that's being disregard is the CANADIAN CHARTER of RIGHTS
YOU"RE GUILTY until proven innocent!
And even after being found INNOCENT, you're STILL on the HOOK FOR all FEES!
Sgt. Dave Woodford
The accused will have to pay $150 to have his licence re-instated. That fee on top of the cost of towing and impounding the vehicle means the driver will be out about $1,000 before he even gets to court, Woodford said.
I agree that the roadside suspension and impoundment are too harsh and probably do violate our Charter (not a lawyer so I can't be 100% sure) - the way 172 is set up, it seems to assume that officers don't make mistakes and never let personal feelings influence things. But violating 172 anyways and then trying to get the cases dismissed is the wrong way to protest it, in my opinion. As the law is already in the books, you should be held to it until it is repealed and should suffer the consequences if you knowingly violate that law. After re-reading the last bit of this thread, I'm not even sure we're debating the same thing. I'm saying that what 172 tries to stop is a good thing, regardless of the methods used to stop it. I think you're saying that 172 is unconsitutional and thus should be changed - which I don't necessarily disagree with; but we should still have stiff penalties associated with stunting and racing that are imposed by a court.
I agree that the roadside suspension and impoundment are too harsh and probably do violate our Charter (not a lawyer so I can't be 100% sure) - the way 172 is set up, it seems to assume that officers don't make mistakes and never let personal feelings influence things. But violating 172 anyways and then trying to get the cases dismissed is the wrong way to protest it, in my opinion. As the law is already in the books, you should be held to it until it is repealed and should suffer the consequences if you knowingly violate that law.
After re-reading the last bit of this thread, I'm not even sure we're debating the same thing. I'm saying that what 172 tries to stop is a good thing, regardless of the methods used to stop it. I think you're saying that 172 is unconsitutional and thus should be changed - which I don't necessarily disagree with; but we should still have stiff penalties associated with stunting and racing that are imposed by a court.
What if your neighbour had the fire and the fire department knock down your house???? This law is too much power and not enough control.. I'm all for getting people like these off the streets, making an end run around the Charter is not how it needs to be done. The law makers knew this was in violation of the Charter when they implemented it.......hhhhmmmm, doing something illegal even though you know it's wrong.....sound familiar
And for the time that that policy is in place, I would make damn sure my kitchen didn't catch fire.
What if your neighbour had the fire and the fire department knock down your house????
This law is too much power and not enough control..
I'm all for getting people like these off the streets, making an end run around the Charter is not how it needs to be done. The law makers knew this was in violation of the Charter when they implemented it.......hhhhmmmm, doing something illegal even though you know it's wrong.....sound familiar
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
Are you saying that the end justifies the means, in your opinion? And how many people who have kitchen fires actually meant for their kitchen to catch fire? In 2006, the government of Canada made street racing a criminal offence. This was long before Bill 203 came into effect, bringing the mandatory impoundment with it. There were already many laws in place that offered options to police and the Crown, some of them featuring jail sentences and permanent seizure of the vehicle after a conviction. It was all constitutionally valid. It offered recourse and options for the accused, while section 172 does not. What happens in three or four years when this law is found to be unconstitutional? All of the innocent get a big cheque and apology, which is good. What's bad is that all of the guilty will also get a big cheque and apology and will be free to continue to drive like maniacs, because to pay compensation, how do you think the government is going to come up with the money?
Squishy wrote:
regardless of the methods used to stop it.
Are you saying that the end justifies the means, in your opinion?
Squishy wrote:
I would make damn sure my kitchen didn't catch fire.
And how many people who have kitchen fires actually meant for their kitchen to catch fire?
In 2006, the government of Canada made street racing a criminal offence. This was long before Bill 203 came into effect, bringing the mandatory impoundment with it. There were already many laws in place that offered options to police and the Crown, some of them featuring jail sentences and permanent seizure of the vehicle after a conviction. It was all constitutionally valid. It offered recourse and options for the accused, while section 172 does not.
What happens in three or four years when this law is found to be unconstitutional? All of the innocent get a big cheque and apology, which is good. What's bad is that all of the guilty will also get a big cheque and apology and will be free to continue to drive like maniacs, because to pay compensation, how do you think the government is going to come up with the money?
Sorry about that, I hope you drink decaf or half decaf! Squishy: Did you spin the tires under acceleration this winter on any of the vehicles in your garage? Radar Identified: Do you think McGuinty cares who's going to pay for it, thankfully he won't be around and he knows it! Look at how he is relieving the burden that Mike Harris did when he downloaded costs to the City of Toronto! Now he says the government will start uploading costs again, it will only take 10 years for it to be where it was before, leaving the burden for the next guy. The Ban Man ain't stupid, he just thinks everyone else is![/quote]
hwybear wrote:
you owe me a laptop....I just sprayed my keyboard with mocha
Sorry about that, I hope you drink decaf or half decaf!
Squishy:
Did you spin the tires under acceleration this winter on any of the vehicles in your garage?
Radar Identified: Do you think McGuinty cares who's going to pay for it, thankfully he won't be around and he knows it!
Look at how he is relieving the burden that Mike Harris did when he downloaded costs to the City of Toronto!
Now he says the government will start uploading costs again, it will only take 10 years for it to be where it was before, leaving the burden for the next guy.
The Ban Man ain't stupid, he just thinks everyone else is![/quote]
Are you saying that the end justifies the means, in your opinion? No, I'm saying that just because a law can be deemed unconstitutional does not mean that the purpose of the law is no longer valid. With that statement, I am referring to those who insist on going 50 over because they feel 172 should not be enforceable. And yes, I have spun my tires this winter, but not intentionally. The act requires intent to fall under the definition of stunting. Obviously, this can be misinterpreted by an officer as intentionally spinning tires if I keep it up for too long (e.g., getting out of deep snow), but we have to put some degree of trust in our officers. We pay them to make these kind of judgement calls - some of them will make mistakes and some of them are dicks, but all of the officers I have come into contact with have been reasonable with good attitudes.
Radar Identified wrote:
Squishy wrote:
regardless of the methods used to stop it.
Are you saying that the end justifies the means, in your opinion?
No, I'm saying that just because a law can be deemed unconstitutional does not mean that the purpose of the law is no longer valid. With that statement, I am referring to those who insist on going 50 over because they feel 172 should not be enforceable.
And yes, I have spun my tires this winter, but not intentionally. The act requires intent to fall under the definition of stunting. Obviously, this can be misinterpreted by an officer as intentionally spinning tires if I keep it up for too long (e.g., getting out of deep snow), but we have to put some degree of trust in our officers. We pay them to make these kind of judgement calls - some of them will make mistakes and some of them are dicks, but all of the officers I have come into contact with have been reasonable with good attitudes.
That even happens to me with all lights activated, drivers just aimlessly pull out in front of me....happens on the 401, happens on 2 lane hwys from people on cross roads......and I'm nowhere near 250.
Radar Identified wrote:
Sure you can blame others for "getting in his way," but any driver with half a brain would not drive faster than a speed that would enable him or her to reasonably react to other drivers on the road and their stupidity. At 250, that is not possible.
That even happens to me with all lights activated, drivers just aimlessly pull out in front of me....happens on the 401, happens on 2 lane hwys from people on cross roads......and I'm nowhere near 250.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
How would you like it if you had a grease fire in the kitchen and the fire department knocked down the entire house? Fires out though......... I have to yet see the fire department save anything but a concrete foundation.....so that example doesn't work :lol:
Reflections wrote:
regardless of the methods used to stop it.
How would you like it if you had a grease fire in the kitchen and the fire department knocked down the entire house?
Fires out though.........
I have to yet see the fire department save anything but a concrete foundation.....so that example doesn't work
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
If compensation is ordered to people who had their cars towed under 172, they'll likely either hit the police budget or something else that Ontarians can't afford to have diminished in order to pay. And depending on how quickly the challenges to this law go through the courts, he could very well still be Premier when the bill comes due. Okay, thank you for clarifying. That said, I don't think too many people are driving more than 50 km/h over the speed limit just because they feel the law is not valid. Many of them were just speedy drivers before the law came into effect, and they continue to be so. However, when 172 is struck down, all of the acts that are stunt driving/racing would still be illegal and have some serious consequences. The other thing is that 172 may actually be letting some real idiots off lightly. Consider this for a moment... and hwybear can correct me if I'm wrong here... Let's say the guy going 250 km/h got arrested for Dangerous Driving instead of being charged under section 172. Crown has to show cause for the charge, so it goes before a Justice. The Justice goes :shock: and orders his licence suspended until disposition of the case. After he gets convicted, I believe that they could've ordered him to forfeit his car. I'd rather have people caught doing such insane things face those sorts of consequences, the difference being the evidence needs to be presented in court before the heavy penalties come into play. Which illustrates my point, the guy was going too fast to react to anything, and I doubt he'd been given any sort of high-speed pursuit/driver training that would've been on the same sort of level that you've got.
M0J0 wrote:
Do you think McGuinty cares who's going to pay for it, thankfully he won't be around and he knows it!
If compensation is ordered to people who had their cars towed under 172, they'll likely either hit the police budget or something else that Ontarians can't afford to have diminished in order to pay. And depending on how quickly the challenges to this law go through the courts, he could very well still be Premier when the bill comes due.
Squishy wrote:
No, I'm saying that just because a law can be deemed unconstitutional does not mean that the purpose of the law is no longer valid. With that statement, I am referring to those who insist on going 50 over because they feel 172 should not be enforceable.
Okay, thank you for clarifying. That said, I don't think too many people are driving more than 50 km/h over the speed limit just because they feel the law is not valid. Many of them were just speedy drivers before the law came into effect, and they continue to be so. However, when 172 is struck down, all of the acts that are stunt driving/racing would still be illegal and have some serious consequences.
The other thing is that 172 may actually be letting some real idiots off lightly. Consider this for a moment... and hwybear can correct me if I'm wrong here... Let's say the guy going 250 km/h got arrested for Dangerous Driving instead of being charged under section 172. Crown has to show cause for the charge, so it goes before a Justice. The Justice goes and orders his licence suspended until disposition of the case. After he gets convicted, I believe that they could've ordered him to forfeit his car. I'd rather have people caught doing such insane things face those sorts of consequences, the difference being the evidence needs to be presented in court before the heavy penalties come into play.
hwybear wrote:
That even happens to me with all lights activated, drivers just aimlessly pull out in front of me....happens on the 401, happens on 2 lane hwys from people on cross roads.....
Which illustrates my point, the guy was going too fast to react to anything, and I doubt he'd been given any sort of high-speed pursuit/driver training that would've been on the same sort of level that you've got.
I agree, but I have met several people with the exact attitude I described. I guess they would be "borderline" in their habits about whether or not to break that law - give them a law that they deem reasonable, and they will follow it; make a law with the same prohibitions but "unreasonable" penalties, and they will disregard it as if it doesn't exist. I know one person who follows the majority of traffic laws, but won't recognize mall stop signs because they are not enforceable under the HTA. Otherwise, he knows the HTA and follows it better than anyone else I know.
Radar Identified wrote:
Okay, thank you for clarifying. That said, I don't think too many people are driving more than 50 km/h over the speed limit just because they feel the law is not valid. Many of them were just speedy drivers before the law came into effect, and they continue to be so. However, when 172 is struck down, all of the acts that are stunt driving/racing would still be illegal and have some serious consequences.
I agree, but I have met several people with the exact attitude I described. I guess they would be "borderline" in their habits about whether or not to break that law - give them a law that they deem reasonable, and they will follow it; make a law with the same prohibitions but "unreasonable" penalties, and they will disregard it as if it doesn't exist. I know one person who follows the majority of traffic laws, but won't recognize mall stop signs because they are not enforceable under the HTA. Otherwise, he knows the HTA and follows it better than anyone else I know.
One more Skiing death in Ontario this year and it will be the same number of deaths used by Cannsfield to sell the Street Racing law to the public! Who would've thought ski resorts could have produced so much carnage, when they're only open for 4-5 months a year!
One more Skiing death in Ontario this year and it will be the same number of deaths used by Cannsfield to sell the Street Racing law to the public!
Who would've thought ski resorts could have produced so much carnage, when they're only open for 4-5 months a year!
The act requires nothing, all is needed is the police officer and his word. The Government put trust in the Police, not me! Who in the hell would trust any officer from Peel Region, tell me you would, I need a laugh!
Squishy wrote:
And yes, I have spun my tires this winter, but not intentionally. The act requires intent to fall under the definition of stunting. Obviously, this can be misinterpreted by an officer as intentionally spinning tires if I keep it up for too long (e.g., getting out of deep snow), but we have to put some degree of trust in our officers. We pay them to make these kind of judgement calls - some of them will make mistakes and some of them are dicks, but all of the officers I have come into contact with have been reasonable with good attitudes.
The act requires nothing, all is needed is the police officer and his word.
The Government put trust in the Police, not me!
Who in the hell would trust any officer from Peel Region, tell me you would, I need a laugh!
I have seen the "lose traction" one used as a stunt...mind you it was a good one..... guy turns from one road to another, hammers the gas spinning around the corner, loses control, goes over the curb, across the lawn and into a house (and not the garage :wink: )
I have seen the "lose traction" one used as a stunt...mind you it was a good one.....
guy turns from one road to another, hammers the gas spinning around the corner, loses control, goes over the curb, across the lawn and into a house (and not the garage )
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
WOW :shock: Do you remember the vehicle involved? My cousin did something similar - turning right on a red, and the car behind didn't like how long he was stopped. Honked at cousin, cousin overreacted and gave it too much gas. His 4Runner did a few circles, hopped a grass median, and ended up on someone's lawn. He had two worn tires in the back, but two good tires in the front (he thought the 4Runner was FWD).
WOW
Do you remember the vehicle involved? My cousin did something similar - turning right on a red, and the car behind didn't like how long he was stopped. Honked at cousin, cousin overreacted and gave it too much gas. His 4Runner did a few circles, hopped a grass median, and ended up on someone's lawn. He had two worn tires in the back, but two good tires in the front (he thought the 4Runner was FWD).
no traffic lighst involved.....turning from a thru road onto a sideroad, both roads paved. Was a pickup, plus a little village, so 3-4 witnesses watched it from a convenience store.
no traffic lighst involved.....turning from a thru road onto a sideroad, both roads paved. Was a pickup, plus a little village, so 3-4 witnesses watched it from a convenience store.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Fascination with police lights? It was last month, just after a police officer was shot and the same weekend the battery of this cruiser died in the middle of the train tracks. Thankfully no one was hurt, N is for Neutral and P in this instance would be for PUSH it!
Squishy wrote:
That looks recent, I see blue lights.
Fascination with police lights?
It was last month, just after a police officer was shot and the same weekend the battery of this cruiser died in the middle of the train tracks.
Thankfully no one was hurt, N is for Neutral and P in this instance would be for PUSH it!
Hi, I am new to the forum. I have been trying to get information off of here and www.ticketcombat.com for my case.
I was given a ticket for going 122km/h in a posted 100km/h zone at Hwy 401 east at Thickson Rd in Whitby ON on April 10th, 2009.
I find this absolutely absurd, since I was in the left most lane of the 401 approximately(within 5km/h) following the speed of traffic in my lane. The guy in…
Hey this is my first ticket so as much information that people can provide will be appreciated. I was making the drive home going around 90kph(in a 80) behind what I knew was an undercover police car. The cop abruptly pulled to the side and pulled back in behind me to pull me over. Now I reduced my speed to below 80 when the cop pulled to the side but he claimed he had me clocked at 109kph and…
On Wednesday I attended court at 1530 Markham Road, courtroom E2, in order to fight my speeding ticket. My original plan was to plead not guilty, and to watch all the people who went before me, the process, the Prosecutor and the Justice Of The Peace so I could strategize and form the best plan for my defence at trial. I had done some research online and sort of knew I wanted to defend myself,…
About 5 months ago I was driving along a two-way road approaching an intersection. The road had a left/ straight turning lane and a right turning lane. There was an 18 wheel gravel truck occupying the left lane at a red light. I pulled behind the truck intending to drive straight. After not moving for about 1 second, I check my rear view mirror, signaled and changed lanes to the right…
I am currently working for an auto parts delivery company and they contracted me to work as a courier.
As I left my base to make my first delivery which was less than 300 meters away from the shop, I had my seat belt off because i was under the impression, according to Section 106 Exception #6 subsection (c) of the highway traffic act, that I would be exempted from the seat belt law. The rule…
Got a ticket yesterday for "Insecure Load" contrary to HTA Sec 111(2). $160. I was pulling a utility trailer in which I had loaded a steel and wood cabinet. Total length of cabinet is 57.5". 14.75" (1/4 of the cabinet) was sticking out over the side of the trailer at about a 45 degree angle, the rest (3/4) was inside the trailer. The trailer has sides 24" high. I didn't have a tie-down or bungee…
I've been researching for months for defence strategy and basic trial information regarding my speeding ticket. However, the information is so conflicting that I have no confidence whatsoever that I know what I'm doing.
I didn't get this info from a friend of a friend, it came from this website, court officials, case laws, and a consultation with a traffic ticket fighting company.
So I was driving east bound pulling an empty tandem trailer on a gravel highway. Eventually I caught up to a truck pulling a fifth wheel. The speed limit was 70km/h and I don't quite remember but I'm almost 100% that the guy in front of me was driving at 60km/h. After being behind him for a few kilometers and getting two cracks in my windshield from rocks off his tires, I decided to pass him. I…
I have been driving for over 10 years without any tickets and accidents what so ever. Unfortunately my luck ran out this past Friday; when the officer pulled me over doing 80 in a 50 zone in Mississauga, Ontario. Officer was very friendly and polite not to mention nice enough to reduce the charge to 15KM.
On the speeding ticket it now says doing 65km in a 50 zone. Never having a speeding…
hi everyone im just wondering if its right for a cop to have my car impounded and give me a traffic ticket for improper plates when my car didnt leave my property, yes i knew the plates werent to my car but on private property it dont matter aslong as it dosent go onto public property. am i right with this that i shouldnt have gotten the ticket or my car impounded?????????????
Have been busy and haven't had much time to follow up on this...
Went to court having not received disclosure (and was not organized enough to apply for a stay), so the trial was adjourned. They photocopied the officer's ticket and notes and provided a log sheet from the plane. I've sent another request for the rest of the disclosure items.
So here's my question -- can an officer amend the ticket…
Hi guys, I got pulled over last night and was ticketed with HTA 172, I was going 157 on a 100 on 400N and was wondering what I should do. I was using cruise control but the guy in the lane to my left was driving into my lane irresponsibly to I sped up to get ahead of him and just my luck that's when an OPP cruiser pulled up behind me flashing his lights. My court date is at the end of the month…
If anyone can answer this I would greatly appreciate it.
Friday morning I checked my mail and received a letter from the MTO stating that under section 47(1) of the HTA the Registrar of Motor Vehicles has decided to suspend my driving privilege for medical reasons. This was due to a report submitted by a physician in compliance with section 203 of the HTA. Enclosed with that letter were forms to…
Ok so looking for some advice in regards to my wife's speeding ticket 120k in 100 (I was in vehicle so witnessed most - but was resting at initial clock.)
whats the likelihood of positive outcome of an 11b (or an officer no show, which I suspect doesn't really happen as much as web/Ads would have you believe) of 8months.
Wife REALLY doesn't want to go, and of course I'm the one doing all of the…
I know I shouldn't have driving but I slept at my buddies' place and I thought I was ok to drive in the morning.. needless to say I still drove and got pulled over.
Background details:
I was pulled over in the morning last week, apparently going 120 km/hr on 90km Northbound DVP. Two cop cars tailed me for a bit, saw them in my rearview mirror while on the left lane, slowed down to…
I got two tickets on Feb 20 2011. One for red light, and the other for Stop sign. I knew I had a good chance at getting off on the red light, because the officer couldn't actually see the light facing me. He was at an opposite angle, further up the street.
I set a court date for both tickets. On April 22 I moved to a new place. I went to the Service Ontario location and renewed my licence…
Winnipeg's police officers have been told to issue more traffic tickets, in part to increase revenue.
And a union representing cops says the move could hurt their efforts to curb the city's gang violence.
Police Chief Keith McCaskill said last night he -- and he alone, without input from Mayor Sam Katz -- recently made the call to patrolling officers and to those in specialized units to step up…
I'm wondering if anyone could enlighten me on what to do about the following scenario:
I was pulled over by a YRP constable because I only had one front head light working. Upon being pulled over, I also realized my insurance card was expired by one month and my car permit was not on me at all. (It doesn't matter now but my valid insurance card was sitting at home in an envelope…
I have a wicked prosecutor in my area, he is an evil man and will lie and cheat, whatever is necessary for him to win. I got a yellow light infraction ticket and the cop was a no show. I requested the charge dismissed and it went like this:
Me: I request the charge be dismissed because the officer is not here
Prosecutor: No, we are going to adjourn the trial so the officer can attend
Accident happened at a regular intersection with turning lanes and lights. I was turning left. The light turned yellow, and the car approaching sped up to make the light. I thought he was stopping, so i made the turn. At the time of the collision the light was red.
I understand that it is my fault. I'm just wondering what my best course of action is.
alright well to get started ive developed a passion for longboarding
for those of you who dont already know a longboard is a big skateboard too heavy for tricks and stuff but boy can they ever go fast
my hobbies include going up the escarpment here in hamilton and stoney creek and riding down the roads leading to the lower part of the city. just wondering here. what would happen if i was going down…
My court date is nearing at old city hall at appeals court.
iwhats going to happen and what do i do?
do I present my certificate of offence and point out to the judge the fine was incorrect, I did not appear and am now appealing on the grounds the Justice of the peace erred and failed to quash the ticket on the basis of the certificate not being properly examined and is not complete and regular on…
and orders his licence suspended until disposition of the case. After he gets convicted, I believe that they could've ordered him to forfeit his car. I'd rather have people caught doing such insane things face those sorts of consequences, the difference being the evidence needs to be presented in court before the heavy penalties come into play.
)
.