It should be HTA 7(1)(a).
7. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway unless,
(a) there exists a currently validated permit for the vehicle;
According to list this is a fatal error that invalidates the ticket.
Is it correct that this ticket is invalidated?
What do I do now to get the ticket cancelled?
Do I still have to go to court?
I requested a trial and request disclosure. It's been more than 45 days since disclosure request and I have not received any notice.
Also this was 2 days after my so plate had OCT sticker... But I guess this doesn't matter...
- Ticket snapshot
- novalidpermit.gif (79.79 KiB) Viewed 810 times
R. v. Hargan, 2009 ONCJ 65 in which an appeal based on missing section code was dismissed.
Has there been decisions since that affect this
It goes into analysis of previous decisions but of specific importance section 11,12,13 below.
 Livingstone J. concluded that not every box and space on the certificate need be filled with the relevant information. She accepted the position of Libman J. in R. v Koshael (supra) that the certificate need only set out the elements required to enter a conviction. She made reference to R. v Baldasare (supra) as an example of information not required. She postulated that other irregularities on the certificate dealing with ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“whether a motor vehicle was involvedÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â, ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“plate numberÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â, ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“driverÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s license numberÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â, and ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“driverÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s birthdateÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â would not lead to a quashing of the certificate under s. 9.1(3).
 Clark J., in R. v Sivaguru,  O.J No. 2927 (Ont. C.J.) approved of and relied on R. v Wilson (supra) and R. v Kashael (supra). He found that the absence of a section number on the certificate was fatal.
 It appears that neither Livingstone J. nor Clark J. was made aware by counsel of the decision of Libman J. in R. v Goodman,  O.J. No. 2111. This case was argued together with Kashael and the judgments were released at the same time. The endorsement in Goodman is as follows:
ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“This appeal was argued together with R. v Khoshael,  O.J. No.2110. For the reasons given in that decision, the certificate of offence in this case was complete and regular on its face, as required by s. 9.1(2) of the Provincial Offences Act, notwithstanding the manner in which the certificate particularized the offence as ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Å“amber light ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â€œ fail to stopÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act, without reference to the section number, or having regard to the legibility of the signature of the issuing provincial offences officer.
The appeal is dismissed.ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚Â