I was pulled over for speeding and the officer "decided to give me break" by not ticketing me for the speeding but he did give me a ticket because the ownership was not signed. The ticket quotes "Sect./Art. OREG 628(8)2" Now looking up this infraction I found the following:

8. (1) It is a condition applying to every permit, other than a CAVR cab card, IRP cab card or special permit, that it bear the signature of the holder thereof, written in ink. O. Reg. 71/08, s. 5.

(2) Where the permit holder is a corporation, the signature of a person authorized to sign on behalf of the corporation is compliance with subsection (1). R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 628, s. 8 (2).

#1 I was driving my wifes car so clearly I cannot sign her ownership.

#2 If the ticket is for 628(8)2... does this apply since the permit holder is NOT a corporation?

Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

This is just bizarre. Section 8(2) is an explanation clause stating that a corporate officer with signing authority can sign the corporate ownership to be in compliance with sub (1).

Your wife could be charged under sub (1), not you. And the signature or lack of one should have been noted when you got the license plate/sticker renewal for the car.

I wouldn't say anything until the trial by which time it is too late to amend the charge. You can decide if disclosure is in your interest or not. I doubt it will reveal anything else.

ticketcombat wrote:

. And the signature or lack of one should have been noted when you got the license plate/sticker renewal for the car.

I see lots of things like this come from the MTO licencing offices. A lot of the employees fill out an application and meet the job qualifications, however have absolutely NO CLUE of the Highway Traffic Act and Regulations etc..

I see this type of things 1-2 times every 4 shifts. From fail to sign ownership, validation stickers on the wrong location, no validation on permit, no annual safety (veh over 4500kgs by GVWR) and wrong colour of plates on vehicles.

Instead of a demerit points offence, I will obtain issue one of the above infractions.

hywbear wrote:

I see lots of things like this come from the MTO licencing offices.

I guess it's more common after all. If you bought the car at the dealership, they would hand you the ownership without the requisite "sign here". You can go to a kiosk for your sticker and avoid an MTO office (until it's picture time). It could be a couple of years before someone in authority sees and verifies your paperwork. It's understandable how it could happen as often as it does.

ticketcombat wrote:

It could be a couple of years before someone in authority sees and verifies your paperwork. It's understandable how it could happen as often as it does.

Not to mention a lot of people are probably in a rush and don't even listen to what they are told and just do as they please.

So I should have no problem taking this to court? Simply state that I could not sign the ownership as the vehicle is not mine?

Thanks... and great site.

dhetherton wrote:

So I should have no problem taking this to court? Simply state that I could not sign the ownership as the vehicle is not mine?

Thanks... and great site.

Well, make sure that your wife signs it though before the court hearing takes place

Thank you... We work hard to make it better!

dhetherton wrote:

Simply state that I could not sign the ownership as the vehicle is not mine?

I wouldn't get into testifying that the ownership wasn't signed. Instead concentrate on the charge which is about a corporate signature. The charge is about the permit holder being a corporation and the prosecution will have no evidence of that. Before the trial you can raise an argument that the charge is insufficient, or after the prosecution presents its case, make a motion of non suit (insufficient evidence to convict you).

Another approach is to have a private word with the prosecutor before trial to convince him to drop the charge.

I take back what I said about disclosure. It's better to request it so that there are no surprises in court. And I would advise you NOT to testify. You can be cross-examined. If you say one thing wrong, you will convict yourself.

So I got my Notice of Trial in the mail and it says that I "did commit the offence of FL. TO SIGN PERMIT IN INK contrary to the HIGHWAY TRAFFIC REG section 6288 (1)" ... not 6288 (2).

So did they simply amend the charge? I was planning on concentrating on the bizarre charge of 6288 (2) as detailed in the earlier post. Is this something I can be charged with since it was not my car, but my wifes?

Cheers.

In R. v. Aristidou, 2007 ONCJ 250 the charge was amended by the police officer before handing over the ticket. After that, the court has to amend the charge. It looks like they amended the charge on their own in your case which should not be allowed. However, the court can amend the charge at trial so it amounts to a wash. It looks like they caught the error and are trying to fix it.

I'm not familiar with any case where the driver is charged for the owner not signing the ownership. You could try to exploit the difference between the original ticket and the charge through disclosure with questions about the charge including clarification and explanation and later in court argue that you could not prepare your defence because the prosecutor did not explain the charge.

This is covered under section 11a of the Charter

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;

The Supreme Court digest states:

Section 11(a) enshrines the rights contained in s.510 of the Criminal Code. As noted in R. v. Toth, (1959) 29 C.R. 371 (Ont. C.A.), it has always been a fundamental principle of our law that an indictment must charge an offence in such a manner as clearly to bring home to an accused an accurate knowledge of the offence with which he is charged. Thus, where regulations governing vehicle weights could be violated in a number of ways, it is not sufficient merely to lay an information in the general words of the penalty provision of the governing Act: R. v. Lucas (1983), 6 C.C.C. (3d) 147 (N.S.C.A.).

Ignore the "vehicle weights" part and substitute your offence and hopefully you will see the point.

You are not responsible for someone else's property, it is that simple. Simple question in court: Officer, would you like me to forge my wife's signature?? It would be like driving a friends car and you being charged for them not signing their ownership. This is an example of the system failing it's self.