Ontariohighwaytrafficact.com

Hi, I just received a notice in the mail with pictures of my car going through a red light. Ticket is in my husband's name, as he is the car owner, but I drive this car. I'm guilty as can be... can't remember doing it, but apparently went right through intersection after light turned red. I realize there are no demerit points with this ticket, but ticket is for $180!!!

2 questions: Do you think there is any way the prosecutor would let me "plead down" to a lesser fine, even though it's clear in the pictures I'm guilty as sin??

Does it make any sense that it's my husband being ticketed although it wasn't him driving??

Thank you for your responses!

Naomi

Naomi,

The red light camea ticket goes after the vehicle plate owner. It doesn't matter who was driving at the time. The ticket is one of the more complicated tickets to fight. It also is one of the easiest to plead guilty to. It carries no demerit points, it does not affect your insurance and if you request a trial (option 3), go to court and then offer to plead guilty, the fine is usually halved, around $60 - $75 plus victim surcharge and costs.

There are a couple of technical points you should be aware of. The ticket you received has recently changed and some jurisdictions are still issuing the wrong version. In other words, the ticket could be invalid. Also the fine amount just recently changed. If the fine on your ticket is incorrect, that would also invalidate the ticket. This depends on the date of your offence.

There are other arguments based on your speed, duration of the amber, disclosure requests, etc. (It gets complicated!)

If you want to fight the ticket, then please scan it and post it here, blocking out your personal information and licence plate. We can examine it and tell you if it's valid.

Otherwise, a negotiation with the prosecutor will get you a 50% discount.

TC

Thanks so much for the info! I will get my scanner working and scan it. Otherwise, if it's valid, i will definitely attend and plead.

I've scanned the notice/ticket as a pdf, but don't understand how to post it. Can you explain how to post it? Otherwise I can send it as an email...

naomi wrote:

I've scanned the notice/ticket as a pdf, but don't understand how to post it. Can you explain how to post it? Otherwise I can send it as an email...

open an account at http://www.photobucket.com and then upload it there.

Just remember to remove your personal information.....you can use "paint" or other programs

thanks, Reflections, for explaining how to upload.

I've uploaded the offence notice as a JPEG on photobucket.

The direct link: http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww51 ... camera.jpg

The HTML code: <a><img></a>

Let me know if you can't view it... this is my first time doing such a thing. I'm not very computer savy!!

The views are good. I have no further comment.

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

Wow, no kidding...

But would such an argument be enough to throw out the charge?? Or would they just "re-issue" me a new ticket?

Are you saying that when my trial day comes instead of trying to "plea bargain" down to a lesser fine, I should fight it entirely based on the fact that it's the wrong ticket issued?

Is there somewhere online I can download more info on the change? Does the ohta website have anything on this ticket? I tried looking through their website, but didn't see anything.

Thanks again for all your help!!

Naomi

oops, I just noticed your link to canlii and looking over that now... thank you!!

this is excellent! i have the same ticket as naomi (the old one)

see my original post http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic992.html

i already have a court date set in november.... in my defense i will first argue that i was making a right turn and did not go through the red light. if that doesnt work, then i will argue that they sent me the outdated ticket.

Ague the invalid ticket first before pleading. The right turn argument can be made during trial. Was your ticket in Peel as well?

Hi,

I have been following these boards closely as I too have been issued with a red light camera offence notice. Unfortunately, the city of Mississauga issued me a court date in mid-Sept when I went to request a trial (no unreasonable delay there!). I also received the same form (5.1) as Naomi did and will be utilizing that defence prior to pleading.

However, I found an interesting ruling from the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO regarding the admissibility of the photograph(s) as evidence (Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Yan, 2004 CanLII 32076 (ON C.A.)) which may assist some. The important sections of the ruling are 26-31. Essentially, the court ruled that the photograph "must" display the date, time and location of the offence either within the photograph itself or superimposed on it. The use of alpha-numeric values, without any means to interpret them, are not sufficient (32).

Looking at your photo naomi, it seems that while the date and time are listed on the top of the photo, the location is not (at least not intelligibly by a common person). There are also no street signs indicating the location of the offence (photo is a bit grainy so I may be wrong). Hence, the photo of your offence is inadmissibly (as the location of the photo cannot be sufficiently established) meaning there no longer is any evidence against you.

Personally, this ruling may not apply to me as one of the street signs is visible in the photographs of my offence (Airport Rd). So the photo places me at one street but not the other. I don't know if this appeals court ruling can work for me, but it will be part of a defence I mount.

Hope this was of some help. Best of luck.

Bee

ticketcombat wrote:

Ague the invalid ticket first before pleading. The right turn argument can be made during trial. Was your ticket in Peel as well?

my ticket was in scarborough or city of toronto.

I got a ticket too and it happens to be invalid (old version)!, Interesting.

In my case was a friend who was driving my car. Is there any chance I can plead guilty (Option 2) and get a lesser fine?.

My record is clean, this is the first ticket I got and now I know the ticket is invalid.

Is it for sure that this kind of ticket is not going to affect my insurance?

Thanks.!

Thanks for the info, amcamx! I'm up July 10th. I will take another look at my photo to confirm if the street signs are visible.

erensto wrote:

I got a ticket too and it happens to be invalid (old version)!, Interesting.

In my case was a friend who was driving my car. Is there any chance I can plead guilty (Option 2) and get a lesser fine?.

My record is clean, this is the first ticket I got and now I know the ticket is invalid.

Is it for sure that this kind of ticket is not going to affect my insurance?

Thanks.!

Red light ticket has no affect on your insurance because it cannot tell who was the driver and the fine is against you, the car owner, not your friend who drove the car.

As for the fine, i heard if you show up in court and take the plea bargain, the fine may be reduced to half (or more, not sure about the dollar amount)

I just wanted to let everyone know what happened at my trial - I approached the prosecutor individually before and I explained to him that the ticket was invalid, brought in a copy of Canlii, but he said according to Sec 90 of the POA, any problem with the ticket itself has no bearing on the finding of guilt. I persisted a little, so he told me to go speak to a paralegal that happened to be standing there... I spoke to him, and he confirmed this was true, and encouraged me to plea bargain. Well, the prosecutor offered me $60 fine instead of $180, so I took it... I looked up Sec 90 of POA when I got home and it seems that it's true. Too bad, because Peel has no reason to comply with the new forms if their old ticket is getting them convictions.

Anyways, I guess I could have made up a story about getting contractions (i'm seriously pregnant), but it didn't feel right to lie...

naomi wrote:

I just wanted to let everyone know what happened at my trial - I approached the prosecutor individually before and I explained to him that the ticket was invalid, brought in a copy of Canlii, but he said according to Sec 90 of the POA, any problem with the ticket itself has no bearing on the finding of guilt. I persisted a little, so he told me to go speak to a paralegal that happened to be standing there... I spoke to him, and he confirmed this was true, and encouraged me to plea bargain. Well, the prosecutor offered me $60 fine instead of $180, so I took it... I looked up Sec 90 of POA when I got home and it seems that it's true. Too bad, because Peel has no reason to comply with the new forms if their old ticket is getting them convictions.

Anyways, I guess I could have made up a story about getting contractions (i'm seriously pregnant), but it didn't feel right to lie...

There is only pregnant and it is always serious...... ....... It is still "funny" that we the public must comply as soon as laws change, but the crown does not..... Best of luck with the new one......

Hi Naomi,

Sorry to hear that things didnt go as planned but $60 isnt a bad fine to have to pay. Plus it doesnt show up on your abstract, an added bonus.

However, I was thinking of what the prosecutor and paralegal said about section 90 and I think Lawman may be correct. Section 90 only refers to defects or irregularities in the offence notice such as spelling errors and other minor faults that do not have a serious effect on the proceedings (as in misleading the defendant (see R. v. Donovan, 2005 NBPC 1 (CanLII) — 2005-01-10)).

However, I think the question here really isnt one on misleading the defendant or other such irregularities.

Rather, Section 13 of the POA clearly states:

13. (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

(a) prescribing the form of certificates of offence, offence notices and summonses and such other forms as are considered necessary under this Part;

So I think the question becomes, on what authority does the city of Mississauga have in issuing offence notices that have not been approved by the legislature?

If municipalities are governed by the POA to utilize the forms issued under Regulation 950, then the city of Mississauga clearly overstepped its authority in issuing a form not in the regulation anymore. It has been replaced. Mississauga cannot arbitrarily issue offence forms to its likings unless provincially approved (the municipalities gain their authority from the province only; their authority is not enshrined in the constitution).

Perhaps a good retort would have been to have asked the prosecutor under what specific regulation can the offence notice issued to you be found now.

That's why I am apprehenisive about asking anyone in court any questions, especially if directed by the prosecutor/police. Frankly, they should have signs that say, "if you have any questions, then plead guilty; we will answer it then."

Incidentally, I think section 205.25 of the HTA supercedes section 13 of the POA:

Regulations, red light camera system evidence

205.25 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

(d) governing the form and content of photographs for the purposes of subsection 205.15 (2), including information that may be or must be shown or superimposed on the photographs, and prescribing a system of codes, symbols or abbreviations that may be used to convey the information;

Regardless, it may make an interesting defence and see how the prosecutor responds when the offence notice submitted cannot be found in any regulation.

I also think she could have won the case if she simply plead not guilty and when the prosecutor entered the photographs as evidence of the offence, asked the court to deem the photos as non-admissible based on the ruling in Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Yan, 2004 CanLII 32076 (ON C.A.). The location provision was a key factor in the decision by the Appeals court who ruled that unless the location is clearly visible or stated on or in the photos, the defendant cannot reasonable be expected to know the location of the offence, hence violating section 205.25 of the HTA.

But in Naomi's defence, trials can be quite stressful when competing against parties who spend their days/lives in court.

ticketcombat wrote:

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

I assume this doesn't just apply to red light tickets but to all tickets issued using the old form.

hi Naomi, how long did it take for the ticket to arrive in mail? i think i may have gotten one too but that's almost 3 weeks ago and i still haven't received the letter..

is there a place that i can call to ask if my car was in fact caught by the camera?

thanks,

ticketcombat wrote:

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

Hi TC,

Any update on this? Did you get the same ruling as Naomi's?

I'd be interested to find out since I have a court date on November and I've been issued the old ticket too.

Still waiting. A decision was due in August BUT the justice forgot his notes on his kitchen table. (I can't make this stuff up!!!) So the matter is adjourned till end of September.

But I've already noticed that they are starting to use the new forms so the loophole window is closing even if no one has managed to go through.

Wonder whether that could be taken as a potentially encouraging sign for others facing a similar predicament? I'd assume that if the courts consistently ruled against the argument (over the use of an invalid form) that the city would not bother with changing it (it is an unwieldy bureaucracy where glacial changes are expected). Otherwise, why bother to do it now, more then half a year later. Or maybe it's just coincidence.

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).

That is excellent news!

Congrats on your victory, I'm looking forward to reading the details.

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!

Hi TC,

Just wondering if you'll be able to post some info on your sucess to get the court to quash the proceedings due to the invalidity of the offence form. In all the case law I found the courts were in general agreement that as long as the substance of the form was not defective or prejudiced the accused, the form itself could be amended (i.e. R. v. Goodine 1992 CanLII 2618 (NS C.A.)).