Hey,

I've been convicted of speeding. Originally I was advised from users here (thanks all) that I should do nothing because the Total Payable was wrong, then go through the appeal process, blah blah blah. Anyway, I got convicted. I think the new rulings are that Total Payable can be wrong as long as Set Fine is correct. So I'm wondering how I should appeal it now...

1) If I appeal saying it should have been quashed due to incorrect Total Payable then my appeal might get dismissed based on the most recent ruling

2) If I appeal saying there are errors on the ticket that I want to talk to a judge about will that work? I know an incorrect date (he wrote a day earlier) isn't a fatal flaw but I want to go to trial and use this as evidence against the cop - clearly I wasn't there on that date (I was at work), so they can't convict me...can they? Maybe I'll get lucky and win and the prosecutor won't refile with the proper date.

Also, if I appeal and lose, I'm told I have to pay the court fees. Any idea on what those might be?

Thoughts?

Anybody have any input on the best way to appeal this?

Thanks

Others might correct me, but I think if you have already been convicted then you are stuck going with option one. Since the wrong date is not a fatal error it won't help you much at an appeal hearing. If you try to bring it up to discredit the cop the judge will probably stop you and say that it should have been brought up at your original trial. The only question the appeals court will be interested in is whether the original JP made a legal error in convicting you by default. If you want to question the cops evidence then you will need to somehow get your case reopened so that you can have a regular trial. However this might be tough since you missed your original trial on purpose as part of your legal strategy not due to an error on the courts part. As for costs I know there is a $5.00 charge for missing your original court date, but I don't know if they charge you again for losing at the appeals court.

Thanks again Daggx

So I just learned that I have to file an appeal within 30 days of being convicted. I was convicted back in May...am I screwed?

Does anybody know how the appeal process works specifically? Do I fill out a bunch of forms to be granted access to a judge, at which point I tell my appeal story...or do I fill in my story on paper, they read it and either grant or dismiss my appeal?

I'm asking because I'd like to let the judge know that I am doing all this legal stuff by myself and have had to learn the laws and procedures. This is no simple task and takes hours of research...of which I don't always have. Because of this time consuming task, and my initial ignorance of the "within 30 days" appeal requirement (I know that's not a real defence), I was unable to appeal in time and am hoping for an exception.

azdjedi wrote:

Does anybody know how the appeal process works specifically? Do I fill out a bunch of forms to be granted access to a judge, at which point I tell my appeal story...or do I fill in my story on paper, they read it and either grant or dismiss my appeal?

They give you a simple form to fill out. Once you fill it out, you will have to put down a deposit for written transcripts of your trial. You will wait until they are done, you will pay the remaining balance, and they will give you a date for your appeal.

Thanks bend.

There are no transcripts...I ignored the original ticket so I could appeal under s9.1. But I guess that's just a detail in the larger picture of having to write out my case in full, ya?

That is correct, in your case there will be no transcripts so you don't have to worry about that. At this stage you won't have to write your whole case out in full, all you will have to do is write a small paragraph outlining your grounds for appeal. Once you get to your appeal hearing you will have to explain your case in full to the Judge. The prosecution will be given an opportunity to make a rebuttal argument so be prepared to defend the points you make during your case. Make sure to cite case law that supports your argument, having more then one case to back up your argument is always good.

Here is an example of the form you will have to fill out for your appeal. This will give you an idea of the info you will need to provide at this stage.

http://www.niagararegion.ca/business/po ... A-0201.pdf

Also here as an example of the form you will have to fill out to ask for an extension of the time to file an appeal.

http://www.niagararegion.ca/business/po ... A-0206.pdf

Awesome! That Extension form is exactly what I was needing...thanks daggx!

On the Appeal form, question "15. The appellant wants the appeal court to". Should I check "not guilty" or "other" and write in "quash"?

When I appealed my red light ticket I checked the box that said "Find the Defendant not guilty" and that worked for me. Also for question 9 make sure to check both the conviction and sentence boxes.

What was your "reason for appeal"?

My case was similar to yours. I received a red light ticket where both the set fine and the total payable were incorrect. For question 16 where the form asks for the grounds for appeal I wrote "The justice erred by convicting based on section 9.1 of the Provincial Offences Act. The Justice erred and failed to examine the certificate of offence, as it is not complete and regular on its face."

Sweet.

Do you think they will grant me an extension if I tell them the reason I didn't file within 30 days was because I was defending myself and it took me time to gather what I needed. I was unaware I only had 30 days; I know ignorance isn't a defence, but in this case justice wouldn't be served by not granting an extension.

Does anybody know of any updates to the s9.1 failing to work because the wrong Total Payable is no longer a fatal flaw?

My hearing is coming up in a month and I'm doing some final research for my case.

I'm also going to bring to the judge the fact that the total payable was not only incorrect but the actual fine that they sent me after being convicted was wrong -- not only wrong from the perspective of what I should have been paying, but also a different value from the actual ticket. The whole thing is just a "payable" mess and I think that's grounds for dismissal. I could use some actual "legal speak" to support this though.