Section 48(6) says you can request a second test and s. 48(6.2) says immediately upon being requested to do so by the police officer. Section 48(6) does allow the cop to request a second test; it only allows the driver to request it. Opportunity for second analysis 48(6) Where an analysis of the breath of a person is made under subsection (2) and registers "Warn" or "Alert" or otherwise indicates that the concentration of alcohol in the persons blood is 50 milligrams or more of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, the person may require that a second analysis be performed if the person requests the second analysis immediately after the police officer requests the surrender of his or her licence under subsection (2). Screening device, instrument used for second analysis (6.1) The second analysis must be performed with a different approved screening device than was used in the analysis under subsection (2) or, if the police officer thinks it is preferable, with an instrument approved as suitable for the purpose of section 254 of the Criminal Code (Canada). Second analysis governs (6.2) Where a person provides a sample of breath for the second analysis requested under subsection (6) immediately upon being requested to do so by the police officer, the result of the second analysis governs and any suspension resulting from the analysis under subsection (2) continues or terminates accordingly.
Section 48(6) says you can request a second test and s. 48(6.2) says immediately upon being requested to do so by the police officer.
Section 48(6) does allow the cop to request a second test; it only allows the driver to request it.
Opportunity for second analysis
48(6) Where an analysis of the breath of a person is made under subsection (2) and registers "Warn" or "Alert" or otherwise indicates that the concentration of alcohol in the persons blood is 50 milligrams or more of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, the person may require that a second analysis be performed if the person requests the second analysis immediately after the police officer requests the surrender of his or her licence under subsection (2).
Screening device, instrument used for second analysis
(6.1) The second analysis must be performed with a different approved screening device than was used in the analysis under subsection (2) or, if the police officer thinks it is preferable, with an instrument approved as suitable for the purpose of section 254 of the Criminal Code (Canada).
Second analysis governs
(6.2) Where a person provides a sample of breath for the second analysis requested under subsection (6) immediately upon being requested to do so by the police officer, the result of the second analysis governs and any suspension resulting from the analysis under subsection (2) continues or terminates accordingly.
Setion 48(6.1) says a second analysis must be performed with a different approved screening device, or if the police officer thinks it is preferable, with an instrument approved as suitable for the purpose of section 254 of the Criminal Code. Instrument approved as suitable for the purpose of section 254 of the Criminal Code are only allowed to be used for purposes or s. 253 of the Criminal Code. Screening devices and approved instrument are two separate and different pieces of machinery. Using an "approved instrument" under the Code triggers all the presumption clauses under s. 258. HTA 48(6.1) The second analysis must be performed with a different approved screening device than was used in the analysis under subsection (2) or, if the police officer thinks it is preferable, with an instrument approved as suitable for the purpose of section 254 of the Criminal Code (Canada). Criminal Code "approved instrument" means an instrument of a kind that is designed to receive and make an analysis of a sample of the breath of a person in order to measure the concentration of alcohol in the blood of that person and is approved as suitable for the purposes of section 258 by order of the Attorney General of Canada.
Setion 48(6.1) says a second analysis must be performed with a different approved screening device, or if the police officer thinks it is preferable, with an instrument approved as suitable for the purpose of section 254 of the Criminal Code.
Instrument approved as suitable for the purpose of section 254 of the Criminal Code are only allowed to be used for purposes or s. 253 of the Criminal Code.
Screening devices and approved instrument are two separate and different pieces of machinery.
Using an "approved instrument" under the Code triggers all the presumption clauses under s. 258.
HTA
48(6.1) The second analysis must be performed with a different approved screening device than was used in the analysis under subsection (2) or, if the police officer thinks it is preferable, with an instrument approved as suitable for the purpose of section 254 of the Criminal Code (Canada).
Criminal Code
"approved instrument" means an instrument of a kind that is designed to receive and make an analysis of a sample of the breath of a person in order to measure the concentration of alcohol in the blood of that person and is approved as suitable for the purposes of section 258 by order of the Attorney General of Canada.
Impaired operation or impaired care and control are mens rea offences. The province impaired related sections under HTA s. 48 are also mens rea. But the province improperly treats it as an absolute liabilty offence. Mens rea offence place the burden and standard of proof on the Province. No hearing is ever provided to the accused and the Province licence suspension is thus not legal. Section 48(9) violates the Charter and is of no force or effect. Once a license has been issued, the right to use one's skill and ability to drive is protected under s. 7 of the Charter and cannot be taken away except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Section 48(8) articulates the words "absence of proof to the contrary." The expressions "evidence to the contrary" in Code s. 258(1)(c), "any evidence to the contrary" implicit in s. 258(1)(g) and "evidence tending to show" in s. 258(1)(d.1) reflect this same standard. Proof to the contrary is akin to the aforementioned Code sections and the difference in wording is not meaningful for the purpose of determining what type of evidence will rebut the presumption, the standard of proof or who bears the burden of proof. The standard of proof that must be met to rebut the presumption of accuracy is reasonable doubt. The trier of fact does not have to be satisfied on a balance of probabilities and the accused has no burden of proof. The Province bears the burden and the burden never shifts to the accused. The HTA provides no principles for determining what evidence is admissible. One cannot point to any particular part of the range of possibilities to constitute evidence to the contrary. One must look at the evidence; that is the whole range of possibilities. The choice whether to submit to a rebuttal belongs to the accused and he or she retains the right to introduce such evidence despite its weaknesses. However, no hearing is even provided to an accused, the government never discharges its burden of proof, the standard of proof has NEVER been met since the short-term suspensions were introduced in the early '80s, and thus, the short-term suspensions are not constitutional. Calibration of screening device (7) For the purposes of subsection (2), the approved screening device shall not be calibrated to register "Warn" or "Alert" or to otherwise indicate that the concentration of alcohol in the persons blood is 50 milligrams or more of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood if the concentration of alcohol in the blood of the person whose breath is being analyzed is less than 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. 2007, c. 13, s. 10. Same (8) It shall be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that any approved screening device used for the purposes of subsection (2) has been calibrated as required under subsection (7). No appeal or hearing (9) There is no appeal from, or right to be heard before, the suspension of a drivers licence under this section, but this subsection does not affect the taking of any proceeding in court.
Impaired operation or impaired care and control are mens rea offences.
The province impaired related sections under HTA s. 48 are also mens rea. But the province improperly treats it as an absolute liabilty offence.
Mens rea offence place the burden and standard of proof on the Province.
No hearing is ever provided to the accused and the Province licence suspension is thus not legal.
Section 48(9) violates the Charter and is of no force or effect.
Once a license has been issued, the right to use one's skill and ability to drive is protected under s. 7 of the Charter and cannot be taken away except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Section 48(8) articulates the words "absence of proof to the contrary."
The expressions "evidence to the contrary" in Code s. 258(1)(c), "any evidence to the contrary" implicit in s. 258(1)(g) and "evidence tending to show" in s. 258(1)(d.1) reflect this same standard.
Proof to the contrary is akin to the aforementioned Code sections and the difference in wording is not meaningful for the purpose of determining what type of evidence will rebut the presumption, the standard of proof or who bears the burden of proof.
The standard of proof that must be met to rebut the presumption of accuracy is reasonable doubt. The trier of fact does not have to be satisfied on a balance of probabilities and the accused has no burden of proof.
The Province bears the burden and the burden never shifts to the accused.
The HTA provides no principles for determining what evidence is admissible. One cannot point to any particular part of the range of possibilities to constitute evidence to the contrary. One must look at the evidence; that is the whole range of possibilities.
The choice whether to submit to a rebuttal belongs to the accused and he or she retains the right to introduce such evidence despite its weaknesses.
However, no hearing is even provided to an accused, the government never discharges its burden of proof, the standard of proof has NEVER been met since the short-term suspensions were introduced in the early '80s, and thus, the short-term suspensions are not constitutional.
Calibration of screening device
(7) For the purposes of subsection (2), the approved screening device shall not be calibrated to register "Warn" or "Alert" or to otherwise indicate that the concentration of alcohol in the persons blood is 50 milligrams or more of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood if the concentration of alcohol in the blood of the person whose breath is being analyzed is less than 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. 2007, c. 13, s. 10.
Same
(8) It shall be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that any approved screening device used for the purposes of subsection (2) has been calibrated as required under subsection (7).
No appeal or hearing
(9) There is no appeal from, or right to be heard before, the suspension of a drivers licence under this section, but this subsection does not affect the taking of any proceeding in court.
HTA s. 48 relies on s. 254 of the Criminal Code in enforce its short-term suspensions. Each section of 254 requires the peace officer to reasonable grounds to demand a breath test. The words reasonable grounds bears a burden and standard of proof. The Province bears the burden and the burden never shifts to the accused. The standard of proof is reasonable doubt. And as explianed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Bernshaw, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254, the test for reasonable and probable grounds has both a subjective and objective component. http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1995/1 ... 1-254.html "The Criminal Code provides that where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person has committed an offence pursuant to s. 253 of the Code, the police officer may demand a breathalyzer. The existence of reasonable and probable grounds entails both an objective and a subjective component. That is, s. 254(3) of the Code requires that the police officer subjectively have an honest belief that the suspect has committed the offence and objectively there must exist reasonable grounds for this belief: R. v. Callaghan, [1974] 3 W.W.R. 70 (Sask. Dist. Ct.); R. v. Belnavis, [1993] O.J. No. 637 (Gen. Div.) (QL); R. v. Richard (1993), 12 O.R. (3d) 260 (Prov. Div.); and see also R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241, regarding the requirements for reasonable and probable grounds in the context of an arrest....[para. 48] [also notice the court only mentions an offence under s. 253] However, once again, no hearing if ever provided to the accused, the government has never discharged its burden of proof, the standard of proof has never been met, yet short-term suspensions and car impoundments have illegally occur since the early '80s. 254(2) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol or a drug in their body and that the person has, within the preceding three hours, operated a motor vehicle or vessel, operated or assisted in the operation of an aircraft or railway equipment or had the care or control of a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment, whether it was in motion or not, the peace officer may, by demand, require the person to comply with paragraph (a), in the case of a drug, or with either or both of paragraphs (a) and (b), in the case of alcohol: (a) to perform forthwith physical coordination tests prescribed by regulation to enable the peace officer to determine whether a demand may be made under subsection (3) or (3.1) and, if necessary, to accompany the peace officer for that purpose; and (b) to provide forthwith a sample of breath that, in the peace officers opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made by means of an approved screening device and, if necessary, to accompany the peace officer for that purpose. Video recording (2.1) For greater certainty, a peace officer may make a video recording of a performance of the physical coordination tests referred to in paragraph (2)(a). Samples of breath or blood (3) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is committing, or at any time within the preceding three hours has committed, an offence under section 253 as a result of the consumption of alcohol, the peace officer may, by demand made as soon as practicable, require the person (a) to provide, as soon as practicable, (i) samples of breath that, in a qualified technicians opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made to determine the concentration, if any, of alcohol in the persons blood, or (ii) if the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that, because of their physical condition, the person may be incapable of providing a sample of breath or it would be impracticable to obtain a sample of breath, samples of blood that, in the opinion of the qualified medical practitioner or qualified technician taking the samples, will enable a proper analysis to be made to determine the concentration, if any, of alcohol in the persons blood; and (b) if necessary, to accompany the peace officer for that purpose. Evaluation (3.1) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is committing, or at any time within the preceding three hours has committed, an offence under paragraph 253(1)(a) as a result of the consumption of a drug or of a combination of alcohol and a drug, the peace officer may, by demand made as soon as practicable, require the person to submit, as soon as practicable, to an evaluation conducted by an evaluating officer to determine whether the persons ability to operate a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug, and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose. Video recording (3.2) For greater certainty, a peace officer may make a video recording of an evaluation referred to in subsection (3.1). Testing for presence of alcohol (3.3) If the evaluating officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has alcohol in their body and if a demand was not made under paragraph (2)(b) or subsection (3), the evaluating officer may, by demand made as soon as practicable, require the person to provide, as soon as practicable, a sample of breath that, in the evaluating officers opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made by means of an approved instrument. Samples of bodily substances (3.4) If, on completion of the evaluation, the evaluating officer has reasonable grounds to believe, based on the evaluation, that the persons ability to operate a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug, the evaluating officer may, by demand made as soon as practicable, require the person to provide, as soon as practicable, (a) a sample of either oral fluid or urine that, in the evaluating officers opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made to determine whether the person has a drug in their body; or (b) samples of blood that, in the opinion of the qualified medical practitioner or qualified technician taking the samples, will enable a proper analysis to be made to determine whether the person has a drug in their body.
HTA s. 48 relies on s. 254 of the Criminal Code in enforce its short-term suspensions. Each section of 254 requires the peace officer to reasonable grounds to demand a breath test.
The words reasonable grounds bears a burden and standard of proof.
The Province bears the burden and the burden never shifts to the accused.
The standard of proof is reasonable doubt.
And as explianed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Bernshaw, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254, the test for reasonable and probable grounds has both a subjective and objective component.
"The Criminal Code provides that where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person has committed an offence pursuant to s. 253 of the Code, the police officer may demand a breathalyzer. The existence of reasonable and probable grounds entails both an objective and a subjective component. That is, s. 254(3) of the Code requires that the police officer subjectively have an honest belief that the suspect has committed the offence and objectively there must exist reasonable grounds for this belief: R. v. Callaghan, [1974] 3 W.W.R. 70 (Sask. Dist. Ct.); R. v. Belnavis, [1993] O.J. No. 637 (Gen. Div.) (QL); R. v. Richard (1993), 12 O.R. (3d) 260 (Prov. Div.); and see also R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241, regarding the requirements for reasonable and probable grounds in the context of an arrest....[para. 48]
[also notice the court only mentions an offence under s. 253]
However, once again, no hearing if ever provided to the accused, the government has never discharged its burden of proof, the standard of proof has never been met, yet short-term suspensions and car impoundments have illegally occur since the early '80s.
254(2) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol or a drug in their body and that the person has, within the preceding three hours, operated a motor vehicle or vessel, operated or assisted in the operation of an aircraft or railway equipment or had the care or control of a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment, whether it was in motion or not, the peace officer may, by demand, require the person to comply with paragraph (a), in the case of a drug, or with either or both of paragraphs (a) and (b), in the case of alcohol:
(a) to perform forthwith physical coordination tests prescribed by regulation to enable the peace officer to determine whether a demand may be made under subsection (3) or (3.1) and, if necessary, to accompany the peace officer for that purpose; and
(b) to provide forthwith a sample of breath that, in the peace officers opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made by means of an approved screening device and, if necessary, to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.
Video recording
(2.1) For greater certainty, a peace officer may make a video recording of a performance of the physical coordination tests referred to in paragraph (2)(a).
Samples of breath or blood
(3) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is committing, or at any time within the preceding three hours has committed, an offence under section 253 as a result of the consumption of alcohol, the peace officer may, by demand made as soon as practicable, require the person
(a) to provide, as soon as practicable,
(i) samples of breath that, in a qualified technicians opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made to determine the concentration, if any, of alcohol in the persons blood, or
(ii) if the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that, because of their physical condition, the person may be incapable of providing a sample of breath or it would be impracticable to obtain a sample of breath, samples of blood that, in the opinion of the qualified medical practitioner or qualified technician taking the samples, will enable a proper analysis to be made to determine the concentration, if any, of alcohol in the persons blood; and
(b) if necessary, to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.
Evaluation
(3.1) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is committing, or at any time within the preceding three hours has committed, an offence under paragraph 253(1)(a) as a result of the consumption of a drug or of a combination of alcohol and a drug, the peace officer may, by demand made as soon as practicable, require the person to submit, as soon as practicable, to an evaluation conducted by an evaluating officer to determine whether the persons ability to operate a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug, and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.
Video recording
(3.2) For greater certainty, a peace officer may make a video recording of an evaluation referred to in subsection (3.1).
Testing for presence of alcohol
(3.3) If the evaluating officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has alcohol in their body and if a demand was not made under paragraph (2)(b) or subsection (3), the evaluating officer may, by demand made as soon as practicable, require the person to provide, as soon as practicable, a sample of breath that, in the evaluating officers opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made by means of an approved instrument.
Samples of bodily substances
(3.4) If, on completion of the evaluation, the evaluating officer has reasonable grounds to believe, based on the evaluation, that the persons ability to operate a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug, the evaluating officer may, by demand made as soon as practicable, require the person to provide, as soon as practicable,
(a) a sample of either oral fluid or urine that, in the evaluating officers opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made to determine whether the person has a drug in their body; or
(b) samples of blood that, in the opinion of the qualified medical practitioner or qualified technician taking the samples, will enable a proper analysis to be made to determine whether the person has a drug in their body.
Last edited by Lawman on Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
If you actually read s. 254 you can see by the construction of the provisions that s. 254 is a total stranger to HTA s. 48. Section 254 only applies to s. 253 of the Criminal Code and the province is barred from using the breath test results to enforce its short-term suspensions. Only s. 254(2)(b) could remotely be argued to apply to the province. However, 254(2)(a) directly refers to s. 254 subsection (3) or (3.1), and subsection (3) or (3.1) only apply to offence commited under s. 253 of the Criminal Code. Therefore, it can be inferred that s. 254(2)(b) also only applies to s. 253 as well. Section 254 only applies to persons targeted by Parliament, not the legislatures of the provinces and territories. Importantly, the government is relying on Criminal Code s. 258.1(2)(b) to use the test results to enforce its suspensions. Section 258.1(2)(b) states: Unauthorized use or disclosure of results 258.1(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), no person shall use, disclose or allow the disclosure of the results of physical coordination tests under paragraph 254(2)(a), the results of an evaluation under subsection 254(3.1), the results of the analysis of a bodily substance taken under paragraph 254(2)(b), subsection 254(3), (3.3) or (3.4) or section 256 or with the consent of the person from whom it was taken after a request by a peace officer, or the results of the analysis of medical samples that are provided by consent and subsequently seized under a warrant, except ... (b) for the purpose of the administration or enforcement of the law of a province. However, in Canada we have territories and not only provinces. People in the territories are not included in s. 258.1(2)(b). Section 15 of the Charter articulates that "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination." Therefore, your s. 15 Charter rights are being violated as the people in the territories are not being subject to the same federal law as you are in Ontario, and this breach of your rights is not saved under s. 1 of the Charter. The government has also not included the s. 33 notwithstanding clause in s. 48 of the HTA. At no time has the Province alleged s. 253(a) was a colourable intrusion into provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights and its enactment an invalid exercise of Parliaments jurisdiction over criminal law, public safety and good government power. It is also well-settled that merely incidental effects will not disturb the constitutionality of an otherwise intra vires law. Thus, even if the provincial suspensions were valid its dominant purpose is to not only significantly hinder, but also eliminate the ability of the federal government to enforce s. 253(a). It also jeopardizes the conviction of every laid impaired driving or refusal to blow charge in Canada. Section 254(5) states; (5) Everyone commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a demand made under this section. Since short-term suspensions are unconstitutional and still being applied, every person in Canada (other than in Quebec as they have no short-term suspensions because they clearly understand the law) has a reasonable excuse to refuse to comply with a demand for a breath sample under s. 254 of the Criminal Code, and under s. 48 of the HTA.
If you actually read s. 254 you can see by the construction of the provisions that s. 254 is a total stranger to HTA s. 48.
Section 254 only applies to s. 253 of the Criminal Code and the province is barred from using the breath test results to enforce its short-term suspensions.
Only s. 254(2)(b) could remotely be argued to apply to the province.
However, 254(2)(a) directly refers to s. 254 subsection (3) or (3.1), and subsection (3) or (3.1) only apply to offence commited under s. 253 of the Criminal Code. Therefore, it can be inferred that s. 254(2)(b) also only applies to s. 253 as well.
Section 254 only applies to persons targeted by Parliament, not the legislatures of the provinces and territories.
Importantly, the government is relying on Criminal Code s. 258.1(2)(b) to use the test results to enforce its suspensions.
Section 258.1(2)(b) states:
Unauthorized use or disclosure of results
258.1(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), no person shall use, disclose or allow the disclosure of the results of physical coordination tests under paragraph 254(2)(a), the results of an evaluation under subsection 254(3.1), the results of the analysis of a bodily substance taken under paragraph 254(2)(b), subsection 254(3), (3.3) or (3.4) or section 256 or with the consent of the person from whom it was taken after a request by a peace officer, or the results of the analysis of medical samples that are provided by consent and subsequently seized under a warrant, except
...
(b) for the purpose of the administration or enforcement of the law of a province.
However, in Canada we have territories and not only provinces. People in the territories are not included in s. 258.1(2)(b).
Section 15 of the Charter articulates that "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination."
Therefore, your s. 15 Charter rights are being violated as the people in the territories are not being subject to the same federal law as you are in Ontario, and this breach of your rights is not saved under s. 1 of the Charter.
The government has also not included the s. 33 notwithstanding clause in s. 48 of the HTA.
At no time has the Province alleged s. 253(a) was a colourable intrusion into provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights and its enactment an invalid exercise of Parliaments jurisdiction over criminal law, public safety and good government power.
It is also well-settled that merely incidental effects will not disturb the constitutionality of an otherwise intra vires law.
Thus, even if the provincial suspensions were valid its dominant purpose is to not only significantly hinder, but also eliminate the ability of the federal government to enforce s. 253(a).
It also jeopardizes the conviction of every laid impaired driving or refusal to blow charge in Canada.
Section 254(5) states;
(5) Everyone commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a demand made under this section.
Since short-term suspensions are unconstitutional and still being applied, every person in Canada (other than in Quebec as they have no short-term suspensions because they clearly understand the law) has a reasonable excuse to refuse to comply with a demand for a breath sample under s. 254 of the Criminal Code, and under s. 48 of the HTA.
Hi, I am new to the forum. I have been trying to get information off of here and www.ticketcombat.com for my case.
I was given a ticket for going 122km/h in a posted 100km/h zone at Hwy 401 east at Thickson Rd in Whitby ON on April 10th, 2009.
I find this absolutely absurd, since I was in the left most lane of the 401 approximately(within 5km/h) following the speed of traffic in my lane. The guy in…
Hey this is my first ticket so as much information that people can provide will be appreciated. I was making the drive home going around 90kph(in a 80) behind what I knew was an undercover police car. The cop abruptly pulled to the side and pulled back in behind me to pull me over. Now I reduced my speed to below 80 when the cop pulled to the side but he claimed he had me clocked at 109kph and…
On Wednesday I attended court at 1530 Markham Road, courtroom E2, in order to fight my speeding ticket. My original plan was to plead not guilty, and to watch all the people who went before me, the process, the Prosecutor and the Justice Of The Peace so I could strategize and form the best plan for my defence at trial. I had done some research online and sort of knew I wanted to defend myself,…
About 5 months ago I was driving along a two-way road approaching an intersection. The road had a left/ straight turning lane and a right turning lane. There was an 18 wheel gravel truck occupying the left lane at a red light. I pulled behind the truck intending to drive straight. After not moving for about 1 second, I check my rear view mirror, signaled and changed lanes to the right…
I am currently working for an auto parts delivery company and they contracted me to work as a courier.
As I left my base to make my first delivery which was less than 300 meters away from the shop, I had my seat belt off because i was under the impression, according to Section 106 Exception #6 subsection (c) of the highway traffic act, that I would be exempted from the seat belt law. The rule…
Got a ticket yesterday for "Insecure Load" contrary to HTA Sec 111(2). $160. I was pulling a utility trailer in which I had loaded a steel and wood cabinet. Total length of cabinet is 57.5". 14.75" (1/4 of the cabinet) was sticking out over the side of the trailer at about a 45 degree angle, the rest (3/4) was inside the trailer. The trailer has sides 24" high. I didn't have a tie-down or bungee…
I've been researching for months for defence strategy and basic trial information regarding my speeding ticket. However, the information is so conflicting that I have no confidence whatsoever that I know what I'm doing.
I didn't get this info from a friend of a friend, it came from this website, court officials, case laws, and a consultation with a traffic ticket fighting company.
So I was driving east bound pulling an empty tandem trailer on a gravel highway. Eventually I caught up to a truck pulling a fifth wheel. The speed limit was 70km/h and I don't quite remember but I'm almost 100% that the guy in front of me was driving at 60km/h. After being behind him for a few kilometers and getting two cracks in my windshield from rocks off his tires, I decided to pass him. I…
I have been driving for over 10 years without any tickets and accidents what so ever. Unfortunately my luck ran out this past Friday; when the officer pulled me over doing 80 in a 50 zone in Mississauga, Ontario. Officer was very friendly and polite not to mention nice enough to reduce the charge to 15KM.
On the speeding ticket it now says doing 65km in a 50 zone. Never having a speeding…
hi everyone im just wondering if its right for a cop to have my car impounded and give me a traffic ticket for improper plates when my car didnt leave my property, yes i knew the plates werent to my car but on private property it dont matter aslong as it dosent go onto public property. am i right with this that i shouldnt have gotten the ticket or my car impounded?????????????
Have been busy and haven't had much time to follow up on this...
Went to court having not received disclosure (and was not organized enough to apply for a stay), so the trial was adjourned. They photocopied the officer's ticket and notes and provided a log sheet from the plane. I've sent another request for the rest of the disclosure items.
So here's my question -- can an officer amend the ticket…
Hi guys, I got pulled over last night and was ticketed with HTA 172, I was going 157 on a 100 on 400N and was wondering what I should do. I was using cruise control but the guy in the lane to my left was driving into my lane irresponsibly to I sped up to get ahead of him and just my luck that's when an OPP cruiser pulled up behind me flashing his lights. My court date is at the end of the month…
If anyone can answer this I would greatly appreciate it.
Friday morning I checked my mail and received a letter from the MTO stating that under section 47(1) of the HTA the Registrar of Motor Vehicles has decided to suspend my driving privilege for medical reasons. This was due to a report submitted by a physician in compliance with section 203 of the HTA. Enclosed with that letter were forms to…
Ok so looking for some advice in regards to my wife's speeding ticket 120k in 100 (I was in vehicle so witnessed most - but was resting at initial clock.)
whats the likelihood of positive outcome of an 11b (or an officer no show, which I suspect doesn't really happen as much as web/Ads would have you believe) of 8months.
Wife REALLY doesn't want to go, and of course I'm the one doing all of the…
I know I shouldn't have driving but I slept at my buddies' place and I thought I was ok to drive in the morning.. needless to say I still drove and got pulled over.
Background details:
I was pulled over in the morning last week, apparently going 120 km/hr on 90km Northbound DVP. Two cop cars tailed me for a bit, saw them in my rearview mirror while on the left lane, slowed down to…
I got two tickets on Feb 20 2011. One for red light, and the other for Stop sign. I knew I had a good chance at getting off on the red light, because the officer couldn't actually see the light facing me. He was at an opposite angle, further up the street.
I set a court date for both tickets. On April 22 I moved to a new place. I went to the Service Ontario location and renewed my licence…
Winnipeg's police officers have been told to issue more traffic tickets, in part to increase revenue.
And a union representing cops says the move could hurt their efforts to curb the city's gang violence.
Police Chief Keith McCaskill said last night he -- and he alone, without input from Mayor Sam Katz -- recently made the call to patrolling officers and to those in specialized units to step up…
I'm wondering if anyone could enlighten me on what to do about the following scenario:
I was pulled over by a YRP constable because I only had one front head light working. Upon being pulled over, I also realized my insurance card was expired by one month and my car permit was not on me at all. (It doesn't matter now but my valid insurance card was sitting at home in an envelope…
I have a wicked prosecutor in my area, he is an evil man and will lie and cheat, whatever is necessary for him to win. I got a yellow light infraction ticket and the cop was a no show. I requested the charge dismissed and it went like this:
Me: I request the charge be dismissed because the officer is not here
Prosecutor: No, we are going to adjourn the trial so the officer can attend
Accident happened at a regular intersection with turning lanes and lights. I was turning left. The light turned yellow, and the car approaching sped up to make the light. I thought he was stopping, so i made the turn. At the time of the collision the light was red.
I understand that it is my fault. I'm just wondering what my best course of action is.
alright well to get started ive developed a passion for longboarding
for those of you who dont already know a longboard is a big skateboard too heavy for tricks and stuff but boy can they ever go fast
my hobbies include going up the escarpment here in hamilton and stoney creek and riding down the roads leading to the lower part of the city. just wondering here. what would happen if i was going down…
My court date is nearing at old city hall at appeals court.
iwhats going to happen and what do i do?
do I present my certificate of offence and point out to the judge the fine was incorrect, I did not appear and am now appealing on the grounds the Justice of the peace erred and failed to quash the ticket on the basis of the certificate not being properly examined and is not complete and regular on…
.