Hello to all on this site. I have just received an offence notice for a red light camera offence & have been researching my options to paying this exorbidant money grab of $325. I have found the discussion on this site helpful, but am wondering, do I have to plead not guilty in order to have the fine amount reduced by the prosecutor? or can I negotiate a reduced fine by agreeing to option 2? The evidence is indisputable from the photos, but there are extenuating circumstances such as weather conditions (heavy rain). Thanks to all for your input. Shocked

Always Option 3.

With Option 3 you still have the leverage of forcing them to put on a full trial and use court time. Thus you can make a plea deal.

With Option 2 you have plead guilty and have no leverage. You will probably end up with the same fine as Option 1, but will have also wasted time attending court.

Thanks for your response, but on my form, option 1 is not guilty/trial, option 2 is guilty/submissions as to penalty, and 3 is guilty/pay full amount. So I,m assuming you're suggesting pleading not guilty even though this is photo evidence, and negotiate a lower fine at time of trial?

Peterg wrote:

option 1 is not guilty/trial ..... So I,m assuming you're suggesting pleading not guilty even though this is photo evidence, and negotiate a lower fine at time of trial?

Your understanding is correct - Not guilty Trial.

It's a free country and even though they have the photo evidence the goverment must still properly convict you at trial. Hence the use of plea deals to ensure the system doesn't choke itself on trials.

However you may have a lucky break if your options are as you describe them, your ticket may not be valid.

Refer to this discussion for more details:

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic1089.html

There is something so fundamentally wrong with charging $325 when you really don't know who was behind it. I know they don't dock the owner of the vehicle points, but still, if it wasn't the owner, and yet the excuse is used that it is their vehicle therefore they ought to know who was driving it at that certain time, it is still penalizing an innocent person. That's wrong.

On another note, sometimes (if the driver is tall enough) they can see the head of the driver. A funny story in the family is that a perpetually immature inlaw sibling of mine got one of these red-light camera bills in the mail and tried to blame it on a younger sibling. That is, until it was made abundantly clear by the big mop of 80s hair-band style (bright red) hair behind the wheel that it was her. Really, the term "lip over the nose" was made for her, as she sulked the rest of the day that she was caught, LOL. We had so much fun teasing her. She didn't pay, and I think she might've got her license suspended for it (or maybe it was another one of her million infractions, I don't know exactly) but she was caught for driving with a suspended license, too. Lol, twit.

Marquisse wrote:

There is something so fundamentally wrong with charging $325 when you really don't know who was behind it.

Ditto for photo radar... although Arizona found a way to solve that problem. They have speed cameras set up on freeways in Phoenix, which take high-resolution snapshots of both the vehicle AND the driver, so then the driver gets charged.

Marquisse wrote:

Really, the term "lip over the nose" was made for her, as she sulked the rest of the day that she was caught, LOL.

That falls into the Nelson Munce "HA HA!" category.

The evidence is indisputable from the photos, but there are extenuating circumstances such as weather conditions (heavy rain).

Not so...red lights are absolute liability offences. If it is heavy rain, snow etc...you are REQUIRED to adjust your driving speed so that you can stop.

So many people blame the roads, if the roads are bad..slow down!