Explanation of "Motor Vehicle involved" on ticket

Moderators: admin, hwybear, Radar Identified, Reflections, bend, Decatur



User avatar
Simon Borys
VIP
VIP
Posts: 1065
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:20 am
Contact:

by: Simon Borys on
Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:02 pm

Motor vehicle involved means whether the defendant was using a motor vehicle to commit the offence. It doesn't refer to other vehicles. So if you got an HTA ticket for speeding or valtag, etc, it would be checked. If you got a trespassing or public intox ticket, it wouldn't be. If it's wrong in either case, it's not a fatal error.
http://www.boryslaw.ca
NOTHING I SAY ON HERE IS LEGAL ADVICE.


User avatar
Radar Identified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Toronto

Moderator

by: Radar Identified on
Fri Jul 23, 2010 5:43 pm

Some of the newer Provincial Offences Notices have a "NO" check box beside the "motor vehicle involved" part. On these tickets, the box only gets checked if there was no motor vehicle... for things like what Simon described, like liquor tickets, etc.
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca


User avatar
Simon Borys
VIP
VIP
Posts: 1065
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:20 am
Contact:

by: Simon Borys on
Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:44 pm

In the last amendment to the ticket books they changed the Motor Vehicle Involved section. It used to be that you had to choose Y or N, as the case was. Now it's just assumed that a motor vehicle was involved, because that's usually the case, and the box is a "N" for no motor vehicle involved, and you check that off only if no motor vehicle was involved.

That change occurred about 1 year or 2 ago now and none of the old PONs should still be in circulation.
http://www.boryslaw.ca
NOTHING I SAY ON HERE IS LEGAL ADVICE.


ignite
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:27 pm

by: ignite on
Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:33 pm

My trial was like a train-wreck.. It got out of my control very quickly. At one point the prosecutor and officer were able to convince the justice that this box "likely" meant that there was no other vehicle involved in the incident.

I was way out of my league, and even though I proved that there was no offence committed, and I requested a motion of non-suit, the justice disagreed (his interpretation he said was not the same as mine), and actually held it against me in his decision that I had requested a motion of non-suit...he actually almost yelled at me when I made the request.


User avatar
Slyk
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:59 pm
Location: South Western Ontario

by: Slyk on
Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:00 pm

ignite wrote:My trial was like a train-wreck.. It got out of my control very quickly. At one point the prosecutor and officer were able to convince the justice that this box "likely" meant that there was no other vehicle involved in the incident.

I was way out of my league, and even though I proved that there was no offence committed, and I requested a motion of non-suit, the justice disagreed (his interpretation he said was not the same as mine), and actually held it against me in his decision that I had requested a motion of non-suit...he actually almost yelled at me when I made the request.
Appeal. Some cases the JP doesn't really understand what's happening, this being one of them it seems. Put it before a real Judge. I had a JP yell at me once, but to my defense, the Crown actually piped up and admitted that there was no concrete evidence, only circumstantial evidence of the allegations against me and arguably not prima facie.
SLYK
-------------
"Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny." - Edmund Burke"

"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal" - MLK Jr.


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “General Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests