I`m trying to help out my son with fighting 3 tickets he got last week.

He did a u-turn in a Toronto construction area, dead-end street, and had a Police Officer

race-up behind him in the middle of the u-turn and block his progress to complete the u-turn.

10 p.m., they were the only 2 vehicles in the area, and the police vehicle was initially a fair distance behind.

He recieved 3 tickets.

1) Fail to signal for turn. (No Statute written on ticket) Sect. 142(1)

2) Fail to Display Two Plates. HTA 7(1)(b)(i)

3) U-Turn Not in Safety. Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 400, Sect 400-12(b)

Questions:

Ticket 1: Is the lack of a Statute indicated on the ticket, with only the Sect. written, a fatal error?

Ticket 2: Minor damage to bumper and plate missing, probably from parking lot hit-and-run. Unaware. Filed report and re-issued plate following morning. (Guilty as charged, I guess.)

Ticket 3: I can`t find any info on Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 400, Sect 400-12(b)... can anyone help please? Is this a bogus charge?

Thanks for any help.

Toronto Municipal Code can be found here...

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_toc.html

but no reference to Chapter 400.

Chapter 400 is the traffic and parking bylaws of the City of Toronto. It's not readily available on the internet, but the wording should be:

Where U-turns are not prohibited under the provisions of

(section on prohibited turns), no person shall while operating a vehicle make

such a turn in an unsafe manner and so as to interfere

with other traffic.

just to clarify the process for a "fatal error"...

for the ticket, "Fail to signal for turn. Sect. 142(1)" with no Statute written on ticket justa blank space...

you should contest the ticket and request a trial date...

and do not appear at the trial... and the JP should find the fatal error... and toss the ticket?...

and if not found by the JP... It can be appealed?

Is that correct?

You don't simply ignore the ticket from the outset?

thanks!

OK... I've done more reading and confused myself further...

Deemed not to dispute charge

9. (1) A defendant is deemed to not wish to dispute the charge where,

(a) at least 15 days have elapsed after the defendant was served with the offence notice and the defendant did not give notice of intention to appear under section 5,

did not request a meeting with the prosecutor in accordance with section 5.1 and did not plead guilty under section 7 or 8;

(b) the defendant requested a meeting with the prosecutor in accordance with section 5.1 but did not attend the scheduled meeting with the prosecutor; or

(c) the defendant reached an agreement with the prosecutor under subsection 5.1 (7) but did not appear at a sentencing hearing with a justice under subsection 5.1 (8). 2009, c. 33, Sched. 4, s. 1 (13).

Action by justice

(2) Where a defendant is deemed to not wish to dispute the charge, a justice shall examine the certificate of offence and shall,

(a) where the certificate of offence is complete and regular on its face, enter a conviction in the defendants absence and without a hearing and impose the set fine for the offence; or

(b) where the certificate of offence is not complete and regular on its face, quash the proceeding. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 4, s. 1 (13).

so... I should NOT have my son dispute the charge, correct???

and as the ticket does not state the Statute, and only states the Section [142 (1)]

the ticket is not complete and regular on its face.

and as such, it should be quashed... correct?

And if not quashed, it can subsequently be appealed.