Red light camera offence ticket

ticketcombat wrote:

Naomi, your ticket is invalid. The ticket you have is called a "notice of offence" and it is covered by Regulation 950 of the Provincial Offences Act.

Hopefully this won't be too confusing. There are two different forms. Form 5 is for jurisdictions where you can request a trial by mail. Form 5.1 is for jurisdictions where you must attend in person to request a trial. You have form 5.1 because in Peel you must go to the court house to request a trial.

On January 1, 2009 the ticket (Form 5 and 5.1) changed. They have to stop using the old ticket and start issuing the new version of the ticket. To get a better understanding of this, the July 28, 2008 version of the Regulation shows both the old and new tickets. Just scroll down to see both versions. It gave all the cities 6 months notice to get their act together by Jan 1, 2009. Peel didn't. You have been given the old version instead of the new version.

The difference between the old and new version is the "total payable" box in the bottom centre of the page. It's different and allows for more information about the set fine.

The second change is in the wording of the options on page 2. For example, Option 2 used to read "plead guilty with an explanation", now it reads "plea of guilty - submissions as to penalty". These are not trivial changes. They are significant as to communicate to the defendant the nature of the charge and the options you have available.

Peel Region has been using the wrong ticket since the beginning of the year. Basically every red light camera ticket they issue is invalid. I am currently in court trying to get a ruling but it's been deferred to August. But that shouldn't stop you from making the same argument.

TC

TC, Naomi - I read your posts with great interest.

I have just (Oct 14, 2009) received a red-light camera ticket in the mail. It would appear to be the wrong form as well (older form 5 - not 5.1). The offence took place September 22. Terribly unclear as to the intersection when viewing the picture, in fact, impossible to make out at all.

TC - how might I contact you so that you could guide me through the process of beating this fine?

I look forward to chatting. Hopefully, I can learn from this forum, exactly what steps are required to succeed. The deemed service date is actually tomorrow - 16-Oct-2009, so I have another 15 days to respond.

Hope to hear back soon.

BigDen wrote:

Great job TicketCombat!

I have been following this discussion since I received my first ticket (red light camera) in over 40 years of driving. I pleaded not guilty and my court date is scheduled for October 6, 2009. My Offense Notice was issued (in Ottawa in May 2009) using the revoked Form 5. I will be arguing that it is an invalid ticket in hopes the judge will quash the ticket. I am most anxious to see the details you will provide in how to make this argument

Again great job!

I too am in Ottawa. As your court date has passed ...... please enlighten us all. How did it go for you? Did you succeed? If so, how did you manage to do so?

But the red light camera ticket that has been revoked (and is the topic of conversation) is an offence notice not a certificate. And the court could definitely determine that a "revoked" offence notice form is simply an irregularity which grants it jurisdiction:

Definition from Dictionary.com

ir⋅reg⋅u⋅lar⋅i⋅ty

–noun, plural -ties for 2, 3.

1. the quality or state of being irregular.

2. something irregular.

3. a breach of rules, customs, etiquette, morality, etc.

A revoked form breaches the rule making it irregular. All POA section 90 does is prevent the automatic dismissal of the charge and forces the matter to a proceeding where the JP has jurisdiction thereby allowing Section 15 (1) of Regulation 200 (Rules of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) in Provincial Offences Proceedings) to come into play:

15. (1) The following matters shall be dealt with only in court:

1. Quashing a proceeding, except under section 9, 18.3 or 18.5 of the Act or under section 205.7 or 205.19 of the Highway Traffic Act.

2. Amending an information, a certificate of offence or a certificate of parking infraction. O. Reg. 498/94, s. 10; O. Reg. 567/00, s. 2.

POA Section 34 (1) sounds like it should be able to allow an amendment...

34. (1) The court may, at any stage of the proceeding, amend the information or certificate as may be necessary if it appears that the information or certificate,

(a) fails to state or states defectively anything that is requisite to charge the offence;

(b) does not negative an exception that should be negatived; or

(c) is in any way defective in substance or in form.

... but it doesn't include dealing with an irregularity only with defects

de⋅fect

1. a shortcoming, fault, or imperfection: a defect in an argument; a defect in a machine.

2. lack or want, esp. of something essential to perfection or completeness; deficiency: a defect in hearing.

Is a "revoked" form defective or irregular? Tough call. From the case literature I have seen, most rule that substance matters, not form.

All of the cases I have been able to find have dealt with mistakes and errors in the form (mostly summons and certificates of offence) made by the police officer but none that I could find dealt with a revoked form. How the JP rules is pretty much a *EDIT*-shoot (I know there is case history out there but I couldn't locate it but it all seems to have been dealt with at the lowest level).

However, a factum I am submitting to the court dealing specifically with this issue engages in the semantics of the applicable sections in the POA and Regulation 950 and argues, basically, that the municipality doesn't have the authority to issue offence notice forms not approved by the province. The authority to do so was granted under Section 28 (d) of the Interpretation Act:

Implied provisions,

28. In every Act, unless the contrary intention appears,

deviation from forms

(d) where a form is prescribed, deviations therefrom not affecting the substance or calculated to mislead do not vitiate it;

...but its repeal left a void. Hence, since constitutionally, municipalities are not recognized but empowered by the province only, anything that is not clearly stated (either im- or explicitly) automatically defaults to the province. Therefore, in this matter, the municipality had to use the correct form since they didn't have the authority to do otherwise.

We'll see.

Greatest Canadian wrote:

The certificate of offence and offence notice are one document but two forms. When it is filled out the top part is the certificate and the carbon copy is the offence notice. The certificate is Form 2 and the offence notice is either Form 5 or 5.1, depending on if the offence was committed in a prescribed or non precribed part of Ontario.

At least this is how non red light certificate of offences and offence notices work.

That looks about right.

Interesting. I guess my question would be what validates what. Does the certificate of offence validate the offence notice or vice versa? My thoughts are that the certificate is essential. But does section 90 (1) even apply if the certificate is valid? Is it perhaps built on the assumption that the certificate is always correct (disputable only in a proceeding) and that any errors on the forms the defendant receives are saveable through 90 (1)?

Why would section 90 (1) have to apply to a certificate if it is correct and the offence notice is not???

Section 3 doesn't even require the issuances of an offence notice:

Issuance and service

3. (2) A provincial offences officer who believes that one or more persons have committed an offence may issue, by completing and signing, a certificate of offence certifying that an offence has been committed and,

(a) an offence notice indicating the set fine for the offence; or

(b) a summons,

The use of the word "may" signifies that it is at their discretion. Furthermore, it seems that, invalid or not, if you get something, it is more then sufficient.

Okay, so I understand that a certificate must not be defective as according to section 90 (1) (a). But an offence form is not a certificate as we've covered.

So, how do we know if the certificate is defective? Is it because the offence notice itself is invalid or does it have to do with the set fine being incorrect as per your Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:43 am post?

Say that the certificate is correct. How then can the proceedings be invalidated?

This discussion was very helpful and provided some needed clarity. Appreciate you taking the time to answer my inquiries.

I'm approaching the factum with a slightly different argument than what you've outlined but similar in substance (lame pun intended). I'll fill in the details when I have a bit more time; at work right now.

Thanks again.

This thread is interesting because I just got one of these red light camera offence notices and it is the old 5.1 form. The offence was Oct 17. So what is the concensus on the recommended action to take?

Should I just go into Mississauga court and say that this form was invalid because it's the old form and therefore this case should be dismissed?

In answer to "Blanket's" question of a few weeks ago: "I too am in Ottawa. As your court date has passed ...... please enlighten us all. How did it go for you? Did you succeed? If so, how did you manage to do so?"; The charge was dismissed. The Justice of the Peace asked me how I plead and I said "not guilty Your Worship." She asked the prosecutor for the evidence (ie. the photo) but they did not have it. As there was no evidence against me the JP said I was free to leave the court room with no conviction. Therefore, I never had to argue about the invalid ticket. By the way, I also did some research about the recommended duration of the amber signal. The intersection I went through had the length set to the minimum (3.7 sec) but in my case there was also a decline of about a 5% grade approaching this intersection. For more info see: http://www.sankey.ws/lights.html and http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/reports/rlcreport5.asp

Good luck

BigDen wrote:

In answer to "Blanket's" question of a few weeks ago: "I too am in Ottawa. As your court date has passed ...... please enlighten us all. How did it go for you? Did you succeed? If so, how did you manage to do so?"; The charge was dismissed. The Justice of the Peace asked me how I plead and I said "not guilty Your Worship." She asked the prosecutor for the evidence (ie. the photo) but they did not have it. As there was no evidence against me the JP said I was free to leave the court room with no conviction. Therefore, I never had to argue about the invalid ticket.

That's great. But weren't we suppose to bring up the issue about the invalid ticket before we plea guilty or not guilty?

I was not given a chance...the JP simply asked me how I plead.

BigDen wrote:

I was not given a chance...the JP simply asked me how I plead.

Did you know they didn't have a copy of the offence notice (which has the photos)? If they did, you probably would have had to pay full fine. What was your strategy going into your court date?

The car I normally drive is in my wife's name and she received a Form 5 Notice of Offense... also on the old form. It is not clear from the photographic evidence that I did not stop (my brake lights are on and turn indicator). I was turning right on a red light where this is allowed.

My question is can I represent her in court to fight this? If so, what is the procedure?

Thanks

I have got similar ticket on Oct. 15. then I found this topic and read through all.

Following is what I have:

I am making a left turn. at a speed of 31 kmh.

- picture shows I was roughly 1 feet approaching to the pedestrian line when the red light already on for 0.3 second.

http://bbs.migsocial.com/attachment.php ... RlvuuJUbiI

- pic 2, shows at 2.1 seconds. while I almost completed my left turning. same speed: 31kmh.

http://bbs.migsocial.com/attachment.php ... qvq4uXkWUQ

-------------------

Factors:

1. I have the 5.1 form, like your guys, but old format. I am not sure whether this makes sense as a bargain chip.

2. the 0.3 second, officers "signature" and the officers code " 8 " are the same as other people in this post. - my ticket is taken in Cambridge, Ontario.

3. I was trying to find the amber light duration for that traffic, not being able to find, but 2 items

- one post in this topic mentioned 3.6 s of amber for min. I traced to the reference website, it is a USA website.

- I did searched some website, but it is business, asking for the info is going to cost me $366.

Question: Isn't the amber light duration/timing information supposed to be accessible to the public?

4. the ticket says 0.3 second and 2.1 second. so detailed to 0.x second.

But why the picture only show minutes? both picture says 18:40. no second. As everyone knows, every camera or camcorder, it does display time and date as detail as to second.

Anyway, I will do go to the court and plead, will set time this afternoon, and the date would be this Friday (Nov. 5) if possible.

I will keep updating my sequence in this topic.

I think I may get a red light camera ticket. Few months back I changed my address and I got a new license with updated address. Does it change my vehicle registration information also? I am asking it becuase if my vehicle registration information is not updated with the new address, I may not get the ticket in my current address.

Second question is, if I go to court for this ticket, will it be a problem for my driver's record or insurance ? Because in the court I have to admit that I was driving the vehicle.

Owner

205.24 (1) An owner of a motor vehicle convicted, as an owner, of an offence under subsection 144 ( 18 ) on the basis of evidence obtained through the use of a red light camera system is not liable to,

(a) a drivers licence suspension under section 46 as a result of default in payment of a fine resulting from that conviction

*******************************************

you just can not renew your plates until the fine is paid.

You should go to the MTO and confirm what address your vehicle is registered at (you only have 6 days once moved to change the info)

So i've been reading through this thread and trying to mount my defence for my court date. I may have found defense on a technicality. If you look at the following link,

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o ... 77-99.html

near the bottom under number 4, Service of Offense Notice.. its states

4. (1) An offence notice issued in a proceeding based on evidence obtained through the use of a red light camera system may be served by sending the offence notice by regular prepaid mail to the person charged within 23 days after the occurrence of the alleged offence. O. Reg. 277/99, s. 4 (1).

So i looked at my ticket and the date of offense was September 3rd 2009, but the officer certified the ticket and signed on September 29th, 26 days after the offense. Since he took longer than the allowable 23 days to serve the notice is my ticket invalid?

So i looked at my ticket and the date of offense was September 3rd 2009, but the officer certified the ticket and signed on September 29th, 26 days after the offense. Since he took longer than the allowable 23 days to serve the notice is my ticket invalid?

While I can't speak from any courtroom experience with this particular defence, I noticed that there is a contradiction between this section in the regulation and Section 3 (3) of the POA:

Service

(3) The offence notice or summons shall be served personally upon the person charged within thirty days after the alleged offence occurred. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 3 (1-3).

Since form 5.0/5.1 is an offence notice, it too falls under this section and based on the readings I have done, I found that the majority of legal scholars are in agreement that when there is a contradiction between an act and a regulation, the act takes precedence. Hence, they have 30 days to deliver rather then 23.

However, I may be wrong. Would be a good idea to obtain disclosure and see if you can develop any further defences prior to trial. Or perhaps someone who has actual experience can comment.

Red light camera tickets are traffic tickets that are issued as a result of a traffic camera being placed at an intersection to photograph vehicles who enter the intersection after the traffic signal has turned red.

Upon being photographed traveling through the intersection on a red traffic signal, the municipality will issue a notice to the owner of the vehicle.

The traffic ticket will have a picture of the vehicle showing the speed it was traveling, and that the traffic signal was red when the vehicle entered the intersection.

The penalty for a Red light Camera Ticket is $180.

There is no accumulation or loss of demerit points for this ticket.

No record kept with the Ministry of Transportation,

No record is kept or available to the insurance companies.

Red light camera tickets will not affect your insurance rates.

The red light camera ticket goes against the vehicle and not the driver.

If you have one of these tickets you can either pay the fine and forget about it or you can go to the court and the court will reduce the fine to about 75 dollars from 180 dollars.

My question was, would I possibly be able to get out of the ticket because they didn't follow the correct procedure for certifying the ticket

saneryin wrote:

I have got similar ticket on Oct. 15. then I found this topic and read through all.

...

...

Anyway, I will do go to the court and plead, will set time this afternoon, and the date would be this Friday (Nov. 5) if possible.

I will keep updating my sequence in this topic.

how did your court date go? can you give us an update on what happened?

My date is booked at Jan. 18, 2010. 9:00am.

I will go to the court to see what outcome would be.

I asked the lady in the court, when I went there last time to fill my form, it it is possible to waive the fee. she says not so far, she did not see anyone's fee is waived.

this post is in my bookmark, I will update when i get back from the court.

ticketcombat wrote:

Got the ruling today. The ticket was quashed.

As this was a first level OCJ ruling, it isn't binding so you don't necessarily need the case law to make the same argument. I have to check with the defendant tonight to see if she's OK with me plastering her name all over the internet.

Anyone can make the same argument in court. The argument is a little complicated and I'll be updating my site within the next week to explain how to make it (with or without case reference).

I too just had my proceedings stayed against this charge. Justice ruled that the court did not have jurisdiction in either validating the proceeding initiated through the revoked offence notice form or invalidating it. Prosecutor didnt look pleased so I wouldnt be surprised if it is appealed (or maybe not, might make it worse for the crown if the appeal fails).

Im assuming at some point the Justice will have to write up their reasoning for the decision. How would one go about obtaining a copy of the decision (if it is not published on Canlii)? I would like to reread the judgment but dont necessarily want to go and obtain a (overpriced) transcript (the Justice was the only one who spoke this time around). Any ideas? Im assuming that Ill need to wait for the 15 days to first pass and see whether I receive a notice of appeal.

Incidentally, I noticed that some of the posts from a few people have been deleted. Now the sequence of responses do not make sense anymore. I thought you couldn't delete a post after a certain amount of time.

amcamx wrote:

I too just had my proceedings stayed against this charge. Justice ruled that the court did not have jurisdiction in either validating the proceeding initiated through the revoked offence notice form or invalidating it.

NICE!

amcamx wrote:

I thought you couldn't delete a post after a certain amount of time.

You can delete your posts at any time.

Hello, thanks to everyone who previously posts within this forum. With your help my case was also dismissed by the prosecution last week. A savings of $180 which I can better use on Christmas gifts! Just thought I would share with you what happened and hopefully educate some on the process.

When you go to trial, initially you line up and meet with the prosecutor who would like to determine how you plan to plead. It is at this point that the prosecutor is willing to accept a guilty plead and offer a reduced fine (most people were offered $75; others $50 if you make a hardship case).

When I was asked by the prosecutor how I would like to plead I suggested neither as Id like to 'quash the charges. She said on what grounds. I said "I would like to enter a motion to "Quash the charges" on the grounds that the charge is insufficient because the specific offence notice issued to me cannot be found under any of the specific regulation 950 in effect today. Therefore the court does not have jurisdiction to either validate/invalidate a revoked offence notice. As a result, I enter a motion to 'quash the charges" (thanks to a previous post)

The prosecutor then explained that the court does not have the legal jurisdiction to 'quash the charges simply because the form has been revoked as the certificate (???) is valid. I then just responded 'OK. (Sometimes it is better just not to say anything). She then asked me to have a seat. I then questioned if I made the right decision. I could have just asked for and accepted a guilty plead and paid a $75 fine instead of the full $180.

Anyway when the judge entered the room, the prosecutor tries to first clear out the court room by calling forward those who plead guilty. The court had about 50 people present. I was then the last person left in the courtroom. When it was my turn to come forward, I was surprised that the prosecutor instead asked the judge for a 5 minute recess. I thought the prosecutor was going to come over and asked me to plead guilty. Instead the prosecutor passed me by and left the courtroom. Just me and the legal secretary in a very quiet court room for a few minutes. I was starting to get nervous.

When the court was then brought back into order, the prosecutor explained to the judge that the form issued to me was revoked 6 months ago and Mississauga continues to issue the old form. (indicated in a previous post) Prosecutor then explained that although the form has been revoked, the certificate (??) is still valid. She explained that the defendant only received the form, not the certificate. She consulted with her colleagues and learned that there have been several cases in this court house where the charges were dropped as a result of a revoked form. She then indicated that she would like to dismiss the charges against me. I was then free to go. $180 savings!

Note: I should point out that I have been reminded of the need to make every attempt to stop at red lights. For me, the lesson had been reinforced so the intent of the court (public safety) had been well served without having to pay a $180 fine.

Another happy customer! Congrats on the win!

witteebanter wrote:

The prosecutor then explained that the court does not have the legal jurisdiction to 'quash the charges simply because the form has been revoked as the certificate (???) is valid.

In these proceedings, the court receives a certificate of offence while the defendant receives an offence notice form. They can be very different from each other (other then providing the basics). Regulation 950 has both the certificate and offence notice form (if you really want to see the difference, you can view it here (it is form 2): http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/i ... s&context= )

Why they are different is beyond me but hey, worked in our favour!!!

Nicely done.

witteebanter wrote:

Anyway when the judge entered the room, the prosecutor tries to first clear out the court room by calling forward those who plead guilty. The court had about 50 people present. I was then the last person left in the courtroom. When it was my turn to come forward, I was surprised that the prosecutor instead asked the judge for a 5 minute recess. .

I have always seen the prosecutor follow the same order

- paralegals

- guilty pleas

- adjournment requests

- discrepancies

- trials

amcamx wrote:

ticketcombat wrote:

Got the ruling today. The ticket was quashed.

As this was a first level OCJ ruling, it isn't binding so you don't necessarily need the case law to make the same argument. I have to check with the defendant tonight to see if she's OK with me plastering her name all over the internet.

Anyone can make the same argument in court. The argument is a little complicated and I'll be updating my site within the next week to explain how to make it (with or without case reference).

I too just had my proceedings stayed against this charge. Justice ruled that the court did not have jurisdiction in either validating the proceeding initiated through the revoked offence notice form or invalidating it. Prosecutor didnt look pleased so I wouldnt be surprised if it is appealed (or maybe not, might make it worse for the crown if the appeal fails).

Can somebody explain, just exactly what I have to do to make this arguement?