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.
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…
