Hi. My wife was pulled over tonight for merging into a carpool lane to turn right 65 meters before the turn, rather than 45 meters. They had 16 cars pulled over (she took a picture with her cell phone camera), 5 cruisers. Not much you can do about that one I guess, just a bummer. That, however, is not why I am here.

The officer also wrote her a ticket for failing to submit her permit (which I assume is ownership). Thing is, she did. She has a photocopy of it that she keeps in her wallet with her license & insurance (the real one is in the owners manual). The photocopy is copied front and back with registration stickers and signature. She gave him this, but also noted she had the original. As far as I can tell the registration is perfectly in order. She says she didn't notice the second ticket until she got home (and I believe her, it's a busy intersection, it was dark, rush hour, she'd never been pulled over before). When he returned to the car he said nothing about the ticket, just said "here you are, options are on the back", she said she was going to ask him where the safe point was to merge into the lane but he just walked off. He had tickets for another person in his hand he was writing them so quickly. In fact, he got a number of things wrong on both tickets (her sex, birth date, etc...)

So, fight it? If so, how? It's her word versus his. I read the section of the HTA (7, 3, a I think?) and it says a copy is valid. Not even sure why he wrote the ticket, probably to take advantage of her.

"permit" means a permit issued under subsection 7 (7) consisting, except when the permit is a CAVR cab card or an IRP cab card, of a vehicle portion and a plate portion;"

Permit to be carried

6 (5) Subject to subsection (6), every driver of a motor vehicle on a highway shall carry,

(a) the permit for it or a true copy thereof;

...

and shall surrender the permits or copies for inspection upon the demand of a police officer.

One permit only

(15) No person shall apply for, secure or retain in the persons possession more than one permit bearing the same plate number or describing the same vehicle.

Regulations re permits and number plates

(24) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting any matter ancillary to the provisions of this Part with respect to permits and number plates and in particular

...

(f) governing the method of validating permits and the form of and manner of affixing, displaying or showing evidence of the validation of permits on motor vehicles;

I don't think s. 15 applies. She only had a copy, she did not have more than one permit, though.

I'll check the regulation with respect to s. 24 later on.

What section did he cite regarding the merge infraction?

What else did he get wrong on the ticket? You said ...etc...

lawmen wrote:

"permit" means a permit issued under subsection 7 (7) consisting, except when the permit is a CAVR cab card or an IRP cab card, of a vehicle portion and a plate portion;"

Permit to be carried

6 (5) Subject to subsection (6), every driver of a motor vehicle on a highway shall carry,

(a) the permit for it or a true copy thereof;

...

and shall surrender the permits or copies for inspection upon the demand of a police officer.

One permit only

(15) No person shall apply for, secure or retain in the persons possession more than one permit bearing the same plate number or describing the same vehicle.

Regulations re permits and number plates

(24) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting any matter ancillary to the provisions of this Part with respect to permits and number plates and in particular

...

(f) governing the method of validating permits and the form of and manner of affixing, displaying or showing evidence of the validation of permits on motor vehicles;

I don't think s. 15 applies. She only had a copy, she did not have more than one permit, though.

I'll check the regulation with respect to s. 24 later on.

What section did he cite regarding the merge infraction?

What else did he get wrong on the ticket? You said ...etc...

Yes, she had a copy of the original. There is, of course, only one actual permit. The copy was front and back with all stickers (and most recent) applied, and a signature. She said that she mentioned to him that she had the original in the glovebox, but that he just said "ok" and walked off to write the tickets.

I can't read the section cited on the merge ticket (seriously); his hand writing is so poor it's tough to say, all it looks like is "5 (3a)" or something. Not sure if it's a 5 or an S or an 8.

He got her sex wrong on one of the tickets, and spelled her name wrong on both. He got her DOB wrong on both (it's correct on her license), he also got the make of vehicle wrong on one. Not sure how he managed to get it wrong on one and not the other. I'd guess it's because he was writing them so quickly. Like I said, he had at least 2 other tickets in his hand for other people when he came back with hers. Kind of crazy.

Thanks!

Sounds like waaaaayyyyy too much going on with the stop and mixmatched charges.

The section that deals with permits is HTA 7

HTA 7(5)(a)

- the permit (ownership or for US people "title")for a motor vehicle must be surrendered upon demand to a police officer (or true photocopy of permit)

Still baffles me as to why (other than a company with multiple employees) people just don't leave the original in their car.

"Kind of crazy" is admirably understated, picus. Sounds like an OPP feeding frenzy that got out of control. It would be amusing if it weren't for the nasty penalties involved -- said penalties including, of course, not only the fines and the "victim surcharges" but also the possible insurance implications, the hassle of dealing with the whole mess (especially if you have the temerity to pipe up against one or more of the charges!) and, for all I know, a fuel tax surcharge, checked baggage fees, and a premium payment due because your wife was occupying a window seat.

Sometimes it seems we just have to accept occasional random tickets, pay the man what he wants, and move on.

Section 5 and 8 don't apply to a merge infraction. There is also no section S in the HTA. Rules of the road fall under ss. 133 to 191. I don't see anything in there about merging therefore it does not exist in Ontario HTA law.

I think she got nabbed for a regulation for high occupancy vehicle lane on the 403 or 404. This is found under HTA s. 154.1(d). It sounds like she crossed into a buffer zone. High occupancy vehicle lanes and buffer zones are only enforced at certain hours, days and months specified in the schedule.

I don't see any time, days or months indicated in the schedule, therefore, in my view, it cannot be enforced.

Crossing into a buffer zone is not illegal even when the times are in force if the movement can be made safely and if she was complying with HTA ss. 159 or 159.1.

159. (1) - Fire department vehicles, etc., approaching

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statut ... .htm#BK230

159.1 (1) - Approaching stopped emergency vehicle

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statut ... .htm#BK231

Regulation 620

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/e ... 0620_e.htm

The French Language Service Act appies to all HOV signage. This means the signs must be biligual, French and English. This means the "Do Not Cross" (into the buffer zone) sign must be in both languages. If they are not they are not enforceable. Check to see if the sign is bilingual.

In any event, you want to beat these tickets. You have options. If you give notice of intention to appear in court for the purpose of entering a plea and having a trial, the court can fix all of those errors and convict her of any offence she actually committed. In my view, she could not be convicted at trial for producing a copy of the permit because it is permissible to use a copy. She may be convicted for the merge infraction if the cop and crown can prove an violation.

However, if you just ignore the tickets and do not respond to them at all, the Justice must ensure they are complete and regular on their face, and if they are, he can enter a conviction and impose the set fine for the offence without your presence in court.

If the tickets are not complete or have errors on thier face, the justice cannot fix the errors and must quash the proceeding and ticket.

Since she has two tickets that will be dealt with at the same time by the same justice, clearly the justice should spot the errors when examining the tickets. Therefore, he must quash them because the information does not match and he will not know which one is correct, therefore, he must quash them both.

If by chance the Justice convicts her on one or both tickets, you can appeal and point out all the errors at that time. The court cannot fix the errors on appeal.

Use your own judgment, but if there are errors on the ticket as you state, I would not respond to the ticket at all and fight them on appeal if convicted. The errors you mention are fatal errors to the ticket.

Did the cop put any set fine dollar amount on the tickets?

I received a ticket once with the wrong township written on it (boundary ran down the centre of the road). A retired cop friend of mine suggested I file a not-guilty plea at the court and speak to NO ONE until 30 days have passed (depriving the officer the option of re-writing and issuing a NEW ticket. Then I would bring all the errors to the attention of the Crown and firmly request that he withdraw the charges (I would ask that BOTH be dropped based on all the errors). It should be evident to the Crown that the cop will make a pretty bad witness when the JP sees all the mistakes he made.

I believe the second ticket was written with the expectation that ONE ticket will be dismissed while still winning a conviction on the 1st. A tactic I think is quite common these days.

lawmen wrote:

Section 5 and 8 don't apply to a merge infraction. There is also no section S in the HTA. Rules of the road fall under ss. 133 to 191. I don't see anything in there about merging therefore it does not exist in Ontario HTA law.

I think she got nabbed for a regulation for high occupancy vehicle lane on the 403 or 404. This is found under HTA s. 154.1(d). It sounds like she crossed into a buffer zone. High occupancy vehicle lanes and buffer zones are only enforced at certain hours, days and months specified in the schedule.

In any event, you want to beat these tickets. You have options. If you give notice of intention to appear in court for the purpose of entering a plea and having a trial, the court can fix all of those errors and convict her of any offence she actually committed. In my view, she could not be convicted at trial for producing a copy of the permit because it is permissible to use a copy. She may be convicted for the merge infraction if the cop and crown can prove an violation.

However, if you just ignore the tickets and do not respond to them at all, the Justice must ensure they are complete and regular on their face, and if they are, he can enter a conviction and impose the set fine for the offence without your presence in court.

If the tickets are not complete or have errors on thier face, the justice cannot fix the errors and must quash the proceeding and ticket.

Since she has two tickets that will be dealt with at the same time by the same justice, clearly the justice should spot the errors when examining the tickets. Therefore, he must quash them because the information does not match and he will not know which one is correct, therefore, he must quash them both.

If by chance the Justice convicts her on one or both tickets, you can appeal and point out all the errors at that time. The court cannot fix the errors on appeal.

Use your own judgment, but if there are errors on the ticket as you state, I would not respond to the ticket at all and fight them on appeal if convicted. The errors you mention are fatal errors to the ticket.

Did the cop put any set fine dollar amount on the tickets?

It wasn't on the 404 or 403. She was on Overlea blvd in Toronto heading towards the DVP. To give you guys a picture of the "scene", I will describe it (I take it almost every day also).

To get to the DVP from where she is you take Overlea to Don Mills road. You take a right on to Don Mills then merge on to the DVP. To take the right you need to merge into a carpool (HOV) lane that is the right lane of Overlea. Apparently the law says that in this case you can merge into the lane to make a right (which is the only option) as long as you do it within 45 meters of the turn. The officers were stationed at a school parking lot which is 65 meters from the turn. As people would merge (too early) they would pull them over into the small parking lot and give them the ticket. Now one could easily argue she was driving safely - there are always cars coming out of that lot, so to merge later would mean forcing your way into packed traffic to make a quick right. I kid you not when I say that almost every person merges into that lane before the parking lot so they have plenty of time to make the right. As mentioned, they had 16 cars pulled over along with my wife and they were moving them in as quickly as they could write tickets.

I'm looking at the ticket now, and from what I can read it says (under "did commit the offense of")

Drive in reserved lane Bylaw 132 93 (I think its 132 93) then it has those numbers I mentioned above that I can't read, 5a? 8a? 3a? I am not sure.

There are set fines on both. The failure to submit is $85 (total payable $110), the reserved lane is $60 (total payable $80).

I am definitely going to fight the tickets. I was just wondering what my options were. I appreciate the info on the errors. For the failure to submit it almost seems like common sense. My wife is 40 years old, she's never had a ticket (she's never even been pulled over), her car is in perfect working order. Her tags are up to date, her insurance is in place. She has a copy and the original title in the car; I can not figure out why he even gave her the failure to submit unless he's just a jerk trying to pull one over on her, or thought she was someone from another car who didn't submit their permit.

For the reserved lane ticket, I am sure she was in the reserved lane; it was a trap, so legally I am sure they "got her", I will still fight it, but based on the errors on the ticket. The reason I am really here, though, is that I am angry about the failure to submit. She did not deserve that ticket. Bookm; interesting theory about them writing two tickets to ensure they convict on one.

Oh, as I look at the tickets again here are the errors:

On the "reserved lane" ticket, they got her sex wrong, spelled her name wrong, got her DOB wrong, and put that she was w/b on overlea; she was e/b.

On the "failure to submit" ticket they got her name wrong, dob wrong, make of car wrong.

Thanks again for all your help.

It's Toronto Bylaw 132-93 3(a). I can't track it down though. Found some amendments to it, however. This is a popular offence. Clearly next to know one knows about it. When you make your disclosure request, also request them to provide you with the number of people charged and the number of people convicted under this lame law. Also find out how much money the city has made in fines from this by law. This is nothing but a money grab.

BY-LAW No. 307-1998

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/bylaws/1998/law0307.htm

To amend further Metropolitan By-law No. 132-93 respecting reserved lanes for designated classes of vehicles on certain former Metropolitan Roads.

By-law #378-2008

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/bylaws/2008/law0378.pdf

To amend former Metropolitan Toronto By-law No. 132-93, being a by-law to provide reserved lanes for designated classes of vehicles on certain former Metropolitan Roads, to permit plated motorcycles and scooters in HOV lanes.

[quote="Proper1]. Sounds like an OPP feeding frenzy that got out of control. [/quote]

Ah ha...see above was on the DVP...not OPP area.....quit pickin' on the "odots"!

hwybear wrote:

Proper1 wrote:

Sounds like an OPP feeding frenzy that got out of control.

Ah ha...see above was on the DVP...not OPP area.....quit pickin' on the "odots"!

Yup, DVP = Toronto Police. (Does in fact sound more like something they would do, rather than the OPP.) My apologies.

lawmen wrote:

It's Toronto Bylaw 132-93 3(a). I can't track it down though. Found some amendments to it, however. This is a popular offence. Clearly next to know one knows about it. When you make your disclosure request, also request them to provide you with the number of people charged and the number of people convicted under this lame law. Also find out how much money the city has made in fines from this by law. This is nothing but a money grab.

BY-LAW No. 307-1998

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/bylaws/1998/law0307.htm

To amend further Metropolitan By-law No. 132-93 respecting reserved lanes for designated classes of vehicles on certain former Metropolitan Roads.

By-law #378-2008

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/bylaws/2008/law0378.pdf

To amend former Metropolitan Toronto By-law No. 132-93, being a by-law to provide reserved lanes for designated classes of vehicles on certain former Metropolitan Roads, to permit plated motorcycles and scooters in HOV lanes.

She filed to appear in court today. I will remember to ask that when asking for disclosure, thank you. One question for you guys; I've read a number of sites that talk about asking for disclosure but can't find any specifics about how you should ask. Should I fax a request? Is there anything I should do re: making sure I actually receive the disclosure? I've heard stories of people not receiving it, but the crown saying it'd been sent. Any way to avoid that? It was my understanding that if you do not receive disclosure the case should be adjourned to a later date?

Proper1 wrote:

hwybear wrote:

Proper1 wrote:

Sounds like an OPP feeding frenzy that got out of control.

Ah ha...see above was on the DVP...not OPP area.....quit pickin' on the "odots"!

Yup, DVP = Toronto Police. (Does in fact sound more like something they would do, rather than the OPP.) My apologies.

Yes, Toronto Police in this case. I should have mentioned that.

Thanks again fellas.

Oh, also wanted to ask; do you guys think there is any point to meeting with the DA before trial? Most information sources say no, some say it is worth it for "failure to submit" type tickets, since they are often times dismissed on the spot.

picus wrote:

Oh, also wanted to ask; do you guys think there is any point to meeting with the DA before trial? Most information sources say no, some say it is worth it for "failure to submit" type tickets, since they are often times dismissed on the spot.

If by DA you mean prosecutor, generally it never hurts to hear what he/she will offer. You can request both charges be dropped. If you know exactly what you are doing they might drop both charges on the spot.

racer wrote:

picus wrote:

Oh, also wanted to ask; do you guys think there is any point to meeting with the DA before trial? Most information sources say no, some say it is worth it for "failure to submit" type tickets, since they are often times dismissed on the spot.

If by DA you mean prosecutor, generally it never hurts to hear what he/she will offer. You can request both charges be dropped. If you know exactly what you are doing they might drop both charges on the spot.

Yes, sorry, that is what I meant. I'm still a little ignorant on the lingo. Thanks for the advice, I guess I'll have her make an appnt with the prosecutor and see if she can't get the charges dropped.