Hello - I'm a long time forum reader that has never really had much to contribute. Maybe that will now change. A friend was driving through a construction zone where the local police were conducting a traffic blitz. They pulled him over and charged him with an insecure load. He has asked me to assist with disputing the charge. I have reviewed the ticket and see no fatal flaws however, I will post it for review in case I missed something. I am also attaching a picture of the "insecure" load. If no one else sees a fatal flaw I will submit for option 3 and post disclosure when we get to that stage but for now, I would be interested in opinions. Thanks in advance.
Hello - I'm a long time forum reader that has never really had much to contribute. Maybe that will now change.
A friend was driving through a construction zone where the local police were conducting a traffic blitz. They pulled him over and charged him with an insecure load. He has asked me to assist with disputing the charge. I have reviewed the ticket and see no fatal flaws however, I will post it for review in case I missed something. I am also attaching a picture of the "insecure" load. If no one else sees a fatal flaw I will submit for option 3 and post disclosure when we get to that stage but for now, I would be interested in opinions.
HTA S.111 Proper loading (2) No person shall operate or permit to be operated upon a highway a motor vehicle that carries a load or draws a vehicle that carries a load unless the load is loaded, bound, secured, contained or covered so that no portion of the load may become dislodged or fall, leak, spill or blow from the vehicle. 2002, c. 18, Sched. P, s. 26. Taking this to trial means that you can successfully argue that the load was secure. I think you will have a hard time making this argument as the load was in fact not secure. Just because the load was partially or entirely in the bed of a pick up truck does not make it secure even if the odds are that it will not come off at low speeds. If he didn't want a ticket, your friend should have used at least 1 strap (though using 2 is proper). All it would take for that load to come off would be a gust of wind, a fast turn, acceleration or stop.
HTA S.111
Proper loading
(2) No person shall operate or permit to be operated upon a highway a motor vehicle that carries a load or draws a vehicle that carries a load unless the load is loaded, bound, secured, contained or covered so that no portion of the load may become dislodged or fall, leak, spill or blow from the vehicle. 2002, c. 18, Sched. P, s. 26.
Taking this to trial means that you can successfully argue that the load was secure. I think you will have a hard time making this argument as the load was in fact not secure. Just because the load was partially or entirely in the bed of a pick up truck does not make it secure even if the odds are that it will not come off at low speeds. If he didn't want a ticket, your friend should have used at least 1 strap (though using 2 is proper). All it would take for that load to come off would be a gust of wind, a fast turn, acceleration or stop.
Insecure load lol. I would argue that there is no possibility those doors are coming out of there under normal driving conditions. I would also suggest that the law posted above implies that the list must be secure under normal driving conditions..... Not in the event of a rollover. The reason I say that is because of the word "blow". I would also take a video of the loaded vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed to show it won't become dislodged. Then I would appeal to the judge's common sense. My prediction: The crown won't take this joke before a judge.
Insecure load lol. I would argue that there is no possibility those doors are coming out of there under normal driving conditions. I would also suggest that the law posted above implies that the list must be secure under normal driving conditions..... Not in the event of a rollover. The reason I say that is because of the word "blow". I would also take a video of the loaded vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed to show it won't become dislodged. Then I would appeal to the judge's common sense. My prediction: The crown won't take this joke before a judge.
The word blow is in reference to light loads such as leaves, tree branches and things like that, loose paper or cardboard and so on...one cannot guarantee normal driving conditions at all times, if the driver has to make an evasive move for some reason they don't want the load getting tossed out...
The word blow is in reference to light loads such as leaves, tree branches and things like that, loose paper or cardboard and so on...one cannot guarantee normal driving conditions at all times, if the driver has to make an evasive move for some reason they don't want the load getting tossed out...
I agree Screech. Nobody wants stuff falling on the road but those doors aren't coming out of that pickup unless he puts it on two wheels. I guess I'll have to think twice about putting my groceries in the bed of my pickup from now on. I would plead not guilty and dare the crown to defend the writing of that ticket.
I agree Screech. Nobody wants stuff falling on the road but those doors aren't coming out of that pickup unless he puts it on two wheels. I guess I'll have to think twice about putting my groceries in the bed of my pickup from now on. I would plead not guilty and dare the crown to defend the writing of that ticket.
I agree that the odds of this load coming off the truck are remote, but however remote there is still a possibility that it could come off. How many of you would feel comfortable driving with your family behind this truck on a 400 series highway? If this were a commercial truck would we even be having this conversation?
I agree that the odds of this load coming off the truck are remote, but however remote there is still a possibility that it could come off. How many of you would feel comfortable driving with your family behind this truck on a 400 series highway? If this were a commercial truck would we even be having this conversation?
I've followed worse especially just before school starts. And speaking of commercial vehicles, yes we are held to a higher standard. I successfully defended myself in Pennsylvania over an insecure load charge. I made a video showing how difficult it was to get the 4x4 timbers from their storage position on my trailer. I showed the video to the jp on my laptop and he found me not guilty.
I've followed worse especially just before school starts. And speaking of commercial vehicles, yes we are held to a higher standard. I successfully defended myself in Pennsylvania over an insecure load charge. I made a video showing how difficult it was to get the 4x4 timbers from their storage position on my trailer. I showed the video to the jp on my laptop and he found me not guilty.
So I hand delivered the ticket (because of potential Canada Post issues) on June 12, to request a trial. The clerk was very nice and provided me with a guide for people that are self representing, she explained what disclosure is and gave me a disclosure request form that was pre-populated with the court information on it. She said if I don't hear anything in a month, give her a call to ensure things haven't slipped by me. Now we wait...
So I hand delivered the ticket (because of potential Canada Post issues) on June 12, to request a trial. The clerk was very nice and provided me with a guide for people that are self representing, she explained what disclosure is and gave me a disclosure request form that was pre-populated with the court information on it. She said if I don't hear anything in a month, give her a call to ensure things haven't slipped by me.
Section 111(2) reads: Proper loading (2) No person shall operate or permit to be operated upon a highway a motor vehicle that carries a load or draws a vehicle that carries a load unless the load is loaded, bound, secured, contained or covered so that no portion of the load may become dislodged or fall, leak, spill or blow from the vehicle. There are two things to look at: #1 So I read the section to say that the load must be LOADED or BOUND or SECURED or CONTAINED or COVERED. It does not have to be all those things, only one of those things. So you would fall under LOADED. That is good. It looks like the officers it was reported to him as insecure by another officer. This is hearsay evidence and should be objected to if the officer says this. However the officer himself says that "none were strapped". Now again, if the officer ONLY testifies that they were not strapped, you can argue that the statute does not require them to be strapped, only loaded. #2 The next part says that it needs to be LOADED so that no portion "may become dislodged/fall or blow from vehicle". So now the officers notes say he moved the doors around himself. And there is the photo evidence as well. If you asked the officer on the stand something like "do you think they could be dislodged from the vehicle or blow out of the vehicle?" what do you think he would answer? Most likely he would say "yes". So this is not good for you (PS- you would not want to actually ask the officer those questions). On the flip side, his comments that he moved them does not necessarily mean they would become dislodged or blow from vehicle. So if the officer only says that he moved them with his hand but does NOT say that they could become dislodged or blow out, then the prosecution has not proved their case. If you take the witness stand, you should NOT lie and only tell the truth. Can you take the witness stand and honestly say that you believe "it was LOADED in a way that it would not dislodge or blow from vehicle." If you can honestly say this, then you may want to take the stand and testify. If you can not honestly say this, then you should NOT take the stand and NOT testify against yourself. Now if you did testify, would this be enough to convince a JP over the what the officer will say? Personally I would take this to trial and I would listen very closely to what the officer says and how he answers prosecutors questions. If he does not specifically say the load could be "dislodged" or "fall" or "blow" out of the vehicle (officer MUST use one of those words), then the prosecution has not proved its case. If this is what happens, then when prosecutor is done asking questions and they ask if you want to cross-examine the officer, you can say "Motion of Non-Suit" "The prosecutor has failed to prove an element of the charge that any portion of the load could become dislodged or fall or blow from the vehicle." Not a guaranteed win, but a possibility to consider.
Section 111(2) reads:
Proper loading (2) No person shall operate or permit to be operated upon a highway a motor vehicle that carries a load or draws a vehicle that carries a load unless the load is loaded, bound, secured, contained or covered so that no portion of the load may become dislodged or fall, leak, spill or blow from the vehicle.
There are two things to look at:
#1
So I read the section to say that the load must be LOADED or BOUND or SECURED or CONTAINED or COVERED. It does not have to be all those things, only one of those things. So you would fall under LOADED. That is good. It looks like the officers it was reported to him as insecure by another officer. This is hearsay evidence and should be objected to if the officer says this. However the officer himself says that "none were strapped". Now again, if the officer ONLY testifies that they were not strapped, you can argue that the statute does not require them to be strapped, only loaded.
#2
The next part says that it needs to be LOADED so that no portion "may become dislodged/fall or blow from vehicle".
So now the officers notes say he moved the doors around himself. And there is the photo evidence as well. If you asked the officer on the stand something like "do you think they could be dislodged from the vehicle or blow out of the vehicle?" what do you think he would answer? Most likely he would say "yes". So this is not good for you (PS- you would not want to actually ask the officer those questions). On the flip side, his comments that he moved them does not necessarily mean they would become dislodged or blow from vehicle. So if the officer only says that he moved them with his hand but does NOT say that they could become dislodged or blow out, then the prosecution has not proved their case.
If you take the witness stand, you should NOT lie and only tell the truth. Can you take the witness stand and honestly say that you believe "it was LOADED in a way that it would not dislodge or blow from vehicle." If you can honestly say this, then you may want to take the stand and testify. If you can not honestly say this, then you should NOT take the stand and NOT testify against yourself. Now if you did testify, would this be enough to convince a JP over the what the officer will say?
Personally I would take this to trial and I would listen very closely to what the officer says and how he answers prosecutors questions. If he does not specifically say the load could be "dislodged" or "fall" or "blow" out of the vehicle (officer MUST use one of those words), then the prosecution has not proved its case. If this is what happens, then when prosecutor is done asking questions and they ask if you want to cross-examine the officer, you can say
"Motion of Non-Suit"
"The prosecutor has failed to prove an element of the charge that any portion of the load could become dislodged or fall or blow from the vehicle."
Not a guaranteed win, but a possibility to consider.
Based on the disclosure: if the prosecutor wants to proceed with the case, and the officer testifies that it is possible for one of those doors to come off the truck, then I don't see a very good outcome for you.
Based on the disclosure: if the prosecutor wants to proceed with the case, and the officer testifies that it is possible for one of those doors to come off the truck, then I don't see a very good outcome for you.
#1 of course it is loaded...that is a non issue...the hearsay thing is not happening either...the charging officer will be the only prosecution witness and he will give his own direct evidence, the other cop just brought it to his attention...there would be no value to put that other cop on the stand...and if you did not get any disclosure about what the first officer saw or said, they won't be coming to court...again, the hearsay thing is out... #2 the biggest point to the trial is if the load MAY become dislodged or fall...the officer will say he could easily move the load...so could it become dislodged? ya, quite likely, there were no straps to stop it from possibly being dislodged...if the OP does take the stand, sure he can have his say, however, he is now open to cross examination...any good prosecutor will get him to say that he infact did not stap down the load and therefore could become dislodged perhaps during some form of evasive movement or if in an accident...
#1 of course it is loaded...that is a non issue...the hearsay thing is not happening either...the charging officer will be the only prosecution witness and he will give his own direct evidence, the other cop just brought it to his attention...there would be no value to put that other cop on the stand...and if you did not get any disclosure about what the first officer saw or said, they won't be coming to court...again, the hearsay thing is out...
#2 the biggest point to the trial is if the load MAY become dislodged or fall...the officer will say he could easily move the load...so could it become dislodged? ya, quite likely, there were no straps to stop it from possibly being dislodged...if the OP does take the stand, sure he can have his say, however, he is now open to cross examination...any good prosecutor will get him to say that he infact did not stap down the load and therefore could become dislodged perhaps during some form of evasive movement or if in an accident...
Thanks for the input thus far. A point was raised about the traffic sergeant that first made note of the load - I did not receive any disclosure notes from him however he is listed as a witness on the court disposition record. Can he act as a witness without any notes? Would the prosecution not have to provide me a "will say" statement if he did not have notes available? Should I make another disclosure request for the initial officers notes? thanks
Thanks for the input thus far. A point was raised about the traffic sergeant that first made note of the load - I did not receive any disclosure notes from him however he is listed as a witness on the court disposition record. Can he act as a witness without any notes? Would the prosecution not have to provide me a "will say" statement if he did not have notes available?
Should I make another disclosure request for the initial officers notes?
If they try to get the other officer to testify, you can object because they did not provide you with his notes. But they really have no reason to get the other officer to testify. So I would not worry about it. If he does show up and they are calling him to testify then you have a good reason to object to it and that should get him excluded.
If they try to get the other officer to testify, you can object because they did not provide you with his notes.
But they really have no reason to get the other officer to testify. So I would not worry about it. If he does show up and they are calling him to testify then you have a good reason to object to it and that should get him excluded.
The law of physics that allows an airplane to take off is the same law that causes the lifting of flat objects in the back of a pick-up. The air moves faster over the top surface than the bottom surface, thereby creating "lift". That's why you often see drywall all over the road. You must tie it down.
The law of physics that allows an airplane to take off is the same law that causes the lifting of flat objects in the back of a pick-up.
The air moves faster over the top surface than the bottom surface, thereby creating "lift".
That's why you often see drywall all over the road.
You must tie it down.
***I am not a lawyer, I have no legal qualifications and my opinions could well be wrong***.
So went to court. The morning was dedicated to the traffic tickets issued by those two officers during a traffic blitz. Mostly seat belt and cell phone type charges. Met with the prosecutor first thing and he suggested that we adjourn the trial to another date so I can provide a letter saying I can attend on my friends behalf. I said I had that discussion when I picked up disclosure and was told that it would not be an issue. Whatever – might have worked to my benefit anyway. They did not have the officers schedule for 2017 so a date of December 8 was set to set a date in 2017. Now whats interesting is that it would appear the prosecution fully intended of having both officers as witnesses. At least this was the situation during the other cases I observed. Like I mentioned in a previous post, I did not receive disclosure from the one officer (sergeant). I overheard the officers and prosecution talking and the traffic sergeant in these cases is retiring at the end of the month. I am curious now how that works for those cases still before the courts where he is a witness. Does he still have to appear even though he is retired? As well, there was a girl that showed up for her appearance. She had her disclosure request form and that was it. The prosecutor said she could adjourn or go to trial today. She said she would go to trial and took a seat. I spoke to her and advised her to take the adjournment otherwise she was going to sink herself by going to trial today. She went back up and got her adjournment. I briefly explained to her how the trials work and advised her to read up on this website. So heres a shameless plug for ontariohighwaytrafficact.com.
So went to court. The morning was dedicated to the traffic tickets issued by those two officers during a traffic blitz. Mostly seat belt and cell phone type charges.
Met with the prosecutor first thing and he suggested that we adjourn the trial to another date so I can provide a letter saying I can attend on my friends behalf. I said I had that discussion when I picked up disclosure and was told that it would not be an issue. Whatever – might have worked to my benefit anyway. They did not have the officers schedule for 2017 so a date of December 8 was set to set a date in 2017.
Now whats interesting is that it would appear the prosecution fully intended of having both officers as witnesses. At least this was the situation during the other cases I observed. Like I mentioned in a previous post, I did not receive disclosure from the one officer (sergeant). I overheard the officers and prosecution talking and the traffic sergeant in these cases is retiring at the end of the month. I am curious now how that works for those cases still before the courts where he is a witness. Does he still have to appear even though he is retired?
As well, there was a girl that showed up for her appearance. She had her disclosure request form and that was it. The prosecutor said she could adjourn or go to trial today. She said she would go to trial and took a seat. I spoke to her and advised her to take the adjournment otherwise she was going to sink herself by going to trial today. She went back up and got her adjournment. I briefly explained to her how the trials work and advised her to read up on this website. So heres a shameless plug for ontariohighwaytrafficact.com.
Good Morning riggyzomba, A good starting point might be the NSC Standard 10. http://www.cvse.ca/nacs/NSC_10_Cargo%20Securement.pdf This standard does not apply to your friend, because he is not a commercial vehicle, but it does afford some guidance on the topic. If it's good enough for a tractor trailer, it should be good enough for your friend. Key words in this standard are in Sections 3 and 5. It appears that the tailgate was up and in good working order (Section 3(1)(a)), and that the cargo did not interfere with the driver's ability to drive (3(1)(b)). Section 5 is the sticky part. Section 5(2) states that the securement system should apply a downward force equal to 20% of the weight of the item. In the case of the doors, you would only need a small strap that was pushing down with marginal force. In reality, each door applied a force on the door below it, so TECHNICALLY only the top door was an issue. Again, the argument that the officer has to make is that the load could blow from the vehicle. I can't possibly fall, leak, or spill. A door is not a piece of drywall, it's heavy and the liklihood of it blowing off of a truck, especially on the roadway you were on (PSL = 50 km/h? 60 km/h?) is probably small. I hope that helps.
Good Morning riggyzomba,
A good starting point might be the NSC Standard 10.
This standard does not apply to your friend, because he is not a commercial vehicle, but it does afford some guidance on the topic. If it's good enough for a tractor trailer, it should be good enough for your friend.
Key words in this standard are in Sections 3 and 5. It appears that the tailgate was up and in good working order (Section 3(1)(a)), and that the cargo did not interfere with the driver's ability to drive (3(1)(b)).
Section 5 is the sticky part. Section 5(2) states that the securement system should apply a downward force equal to 20% of the weight of the item. In the case of the doors, you would only need a small strap that was pushing down with marginal force. In reality, each door applied a force on the door below it, so TECHNICALLY only the top door was an issue.
Again, the argument that the officer has to make is that the load could blow from the vehicle. I can't possibly fall, leak, or spill. A door is not a piece of drywall, it's heavy and the liklihood of it blowing off of a truck, especially on the roadway you were on (PSL = 50 km/h? 60 km/h?) is probably small.
The NSC (National Safety Code) wouldn't apply as the person was charged with insecure load, not insecure load-commercial motor vehicle...and yes, it is a commercial motor vehicle...
The NSC (National Safety Code) wouldn't apply as the person was charged with insecure load, not insecure load-commercial motor vehicle...and yes, it is a commercial motor vehicle...
In part: "commercial motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle having permanently attached thereto a truck or delivery body...People often argue that their pick up truck is not "commercial" as they use it for private use only...that belief is wrong...there are different definitions, rules and regulations for commercial motor vehicle depending on their registered gross weights, but they are all cmv's...
In part: "commercial motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle having permanently attached thereto a truck or delivery body...People often argue that their pick up truck is not "commercial" as they use it for private use only...that belief is wrong...there are different definitions, rules and regulations for commercial motor vehicle depending on their registered gross weights, but they are all cmv's...
Thanks for the link to the NSC - some interesting reading in there. I am still pondering the one officer being retired. As he is mentioned in the disclosure notes, if he does not show up at trial time (because he will be retired by then) can I ask for the charge to be stayed as I would not have the opportunity to question him?
Thanks for the link to the NSC - some interesting reading in there.
I am still pondering the one officer being retired. As he is mentioned in the disclosure notes, if he does not show up at trial time (because he will be retired by then) can I ask for the charge to be stayed as I would not have the opportunity to question him?
I searched but could not retrieve a satisfactory answer.
It seems matter-of-fact that all sorts of work equipment, namely backhoes, loaders and other similar mororized vehicles without licence plates, sometimes equipped with a slow moving vehicle sign, often not, some with an amber beacon, some without, are encountered on a highway, travelling under their own power, sometimes on multi-lane roads…
Hello everyone I'm not sure if this is the right place to put it but I need some answers as I'm very scared and don't know what to do. Recently if got a Novice Driver B.A.C Above zero I am 23 years old and I'm pretty due to get my G class license in a couple of weeks. I understand that I was wrong for drinking a beer and half and driving with a G2 Class license.
I have been reading Fight Your Traffic Ticket site and have a couple of comments.
I was issued two tickets at the same time, one for invalid left turn (Hwy 7 in Markham and Swansea). Another one, because the officer did not like my copy of registration documents.
I am planning to challenge it in the court. Actually I already submitted the request.
Hi, I have a court date Oct. 21,08 for parking in the fire route of my friends building. How can i get this $100 fine reduced or eliminated? only argument i really have is that visitor parking was full and i went around a few times. I wasn't there for long either.
+
I just got a ticket for going right on red fail to stop(114[18])$180. No pedestrians were in the way. I'm not a unsafe driver, so I'm…
My mom received a ticket under OHTA 159(1). She was turning left at an intersection. The light was green and there were no cars in front of her. She entered the intersection and waited for incoming traffic to clear so that she could complete the turn. As she waited, a fire truck with its sirens on was driving from the street onto which she was turning (perpendicular). He honked at her (presumably…
Basically, I was selling the car and I informed the buyer that the car was in not insured at the time.
He bought dealer plates from his work place and assured me that it was fine. We got pulled over by OPP and they asked for our information.
I explained that it was my car and the test driver was working at a dealership with his plates that has insurance, they told us that the plates don't apply
The other day I was given a ticket for speeding 119 in a 90, on highway 17 near Marathon, ON (Speeding ticket capital of the universe, BTW). The officer claims to have "clocked" me using the vehicle mounted radar at 121 KMH and dropped it (presumably to lower fine and demerits).
I was not going that fast, but there was a larger, and faster moving, vehicle behind me, gaining fast (I was driving a…
Location: 401 exit to Homer Watson Blvd, Kitchener/ Cambridge.
I was going on 401. When I was approaching the location mentioned at the topic, I tried to over take a truck in front of me, and realized a car tailgating me right after I went out to the fast lane. At first I thought it was some other fast drivers so I just thought that I would go back into the middle…
Hey, i recently got a ticket for failing to stop a red light (Section 114(18)).
I was travelling south, the cop was travelling north. He was on the other side of the intersection then me, my light turned yellow and i tried running it but it turned red before i could cross the line. I was going too fast to be able to stomp the break so i had to run it through.
I'm just curious how long will a Driving while suspended affect my insurance rates? Initially when I got my conviction with DWS my rates went from 180 a month to 390, since then I've had no tickets or even been pulled over and my rates have gone down to 240 since then. I believe it will be 3 years in Sept 2017. Will the DWS affect my insurance for 6 years because thats how long it stays on my…
It's winter, and there's been a cold snap. The highway you are traveling on is wet, but not slippery. You take your exit, but the salt trucks haven't been on this ramp, and despite slowing down to below the recommended speed, your car slips on some black ice, and you find the car rotating clockwise. The car rotates 180 degrees, and slides backwards off the ramp…
So about a month ago I received a stunt/racing charge for going 140 in an 80 zone. I decided to go with a paralegal, and was notified by the paralegal that on the summon's it states to go to a criminal court. The paralegal was confused as this should be at a Provincial court. They said that since I do not have any criminal charges, that the officer wrote the wrong address down including…
I got a careless driving ticket and I was involved in quite a serious accident. I was driving at about 60 km/h arriving towards a stop sign. Unfortunately when I tried to stop, my shoes were sliding off from my foot as they did not have any strap and were perhaps oversized and slippery. I could not stop at the sign and hit a van that had the right of way. Both vehicles were badly damaged and…
In some cases, it takes too long for the Crown to bring a charge against a defendant to trial. If your charge has taken too long to come to trial, you can stop the proceedings by "filing an 11B." This is filing paperwork to bring a motion at your trial, where you essentially say, "my rights to a speedy trial have been violated, and I want the case stopped." It is called an 11B because section…
Hi I'm new to this forum but I hope I'm bringing you all good news.
I recently wrote a book short titled ABUSE OF POWER
This book is all about how the Ontario government broke the law to enact the new street racing legislation.
To start with the denial of the right to remain innocent until proven guilty was enacted without due process under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. How it wasn't done…
I have been caught 3 times driving while suspended for unpaid fines . I have still not paid the fines and did not go to the first 2 court dates. When I was pulled over the second time the police officer said he would put down as it was my first time . But I had to work as I just started a new job. I called in to have the date changed but they said it was to late . So I did not go to court .…
Today I received a hand held device ticket on Gardiner. I was pulled over by the police officer and told i was using my cell phone while driving but i never even touched my cell phone. He told me my hand was not on steering. I am sure i didn't touch the phone. The phone was on the right passenger seat connected to my car. I was using mobile gps which was on dashboard display and never touched…
As the title states, I received a ticket for failing to proceed at a green light. I have gained a lot of knowledge from this site for various things, however even a google search of this ticket doesn't seem to pull up much info. Someone else had made a post about this back in 2009 but my story is quite different.
So I shall explain...
On the night of February 23/2013 I had decided to be the…
Need some advice on reaching a plea deal with the prosecutor and how to go about talking to the crown. I'm not here to be lectured ect. I'm aware I made a mistake, and need advice on fixing it. So kindly keep comments about my impulsive decision to yourself.
Backstory:
I'm 19 with a g2 license. Was going home late at night and decided to go down a road that I knew was smooth with zero traffic so I…
I recently got pulled over and issued a ticket for following too closely and am looking to challenge the charges. However, I will be at school by the trial date. This is significant because I received the ticket in Ottawa (where my family lives), but attend school in Waterloo (almost 6 hours away). I will also be starting co-op this summer and as such likely won't be returning home in order to…
I was charged with careless driving for a one-vehicle accident, and would like to know how to go about pleading not guilty. I was driving on a rural road at night in an 80 kmh zone. I was driving up a hill. At the top of the hill is a 90 degree turn sign (no stop sign, no kmh posted). I hit the brakes too late, and because the road goes downhill and there's a lot of gravel, skidded one or two…
Not sure the right place for this so if it needs to be moved please do so.
I was stopped today for 15 over the speed limit, I gave all the documents to the officer and he said he could not accept a photocopy of my ownership only the original I had a photo copy front and back and I had my plate sticker number with it.
he gave me a ticket for HWY ACT Section 7(5)(a) he said only the original would…
Tonight, I was pulled over for apparently doing 132km in an 80km zone. Although I'd only caught myself doing 120km(yes, still over, I'm aware). After about 30 min of sitting on the side of the road, the officer came over and kindly decided not to take away my license or impound the car on the spot. I did not recieve any fines. He did, however, give me a court date in August. Never mentioning…
I have been a frequent visitor of this site for a while now but I just made an account today to ask a question that I have gotten no real clear cut answer on in the past.
What I'm talking about here is H.I.D. (High Intensity Discharge) Headlight Conversion Kits. For those of you who don't know what they are all about you can just google it and you will receive more than enough…
