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 have a problem and not sure what the hell to do about it. Few days ago I was stopped on a street going westbound against blinding afternoon sun following the flow of traffic. I drive a taxi for living in Toronto and have ACZ driver's license. I have a perfect record both for professional as well regular demerit points. I haven't been pulled over as a matter of fact in some 15 years for…
I have recently gone to court for a speeding ticket issued by an OPP officer. As it stood, the officer forgot to sign the ticket. So at my trial, before I made a plea, I pointed this out to the justice of the peace and asked that the ticket be quashed. I was asked to produce my copy of the ticket, which I gave and the JOP then agreed with me and dismissed the case. Before he did so, the…
I got pulled over (along with about 10 other cars) for going through a road closed sign. I had just pulled out of a parking lot pretty much right beside the road closed sign, and with about 4 cars behind me there wasn't much I could do but go through, so I think I have a good chance of fighting it. However, on my ticket under the Signature of issuing Provincial Offences Officer, it's left…
So here's my situation, any advice would be appreciated.
On June 26, 2013 I received a ticket for 25 over in a 60 zone
In early October I received my notice of trial (Feb 25, 2014)
In early January I sent in my request for disclosure
In late January I received a letter to pick up my disclosure, however when I picked up my disclosure it wasn't typed (I had requested it to be) and I needed…
Is there a legal requirement to report an accident to the insurer?
Scenario
- 2 vehicle accident
- each vehicle has less than $1000 damage
- each vehicle has damage roughly equal to insurance deductible
- a police Accident Report was completed
In this scenario the drivers decided to repair their own damages. But are they legally bound to report the accident and damages to the insurer? ...and out of…
I will be representing my wife at her speeding trial next week. Mostly everything is pretty much run of the mill but since she wasn't speeding we will be having her take the stand. Since this opens up the opportunity for the prosecutor to cross examine, I am just wondering if anyone here knows what kind of questions we should expect from the prosecutor in order to best prepare.
i got pulled over by a cop this morning in my kids's school zone for failure to stop at a stop sign. i am thinking of fighting this ticket, but i noticed that on the ticket itself it only says "disobey stop sign - fail to stop" and there is no mention of the demerit points. a co-worker mentioned to me that a ticket should state how many demerit points i am being docked. i know the Highway Traffic…
Alright, so this happened back awhile ago on June and I haven't appeared in Court. However, I would like some inputs and advice before I get into this battle.
Back in June I got a Speeding Ticket claiming I was going 100km/h on Blackcreek going south towards Lawrence. The Speed Limit there is 70km/h.
At this point of time, it was roughly traffic hour around 4-5PM. Coming off of the Highway, and…
Ive already done searches, read the act as best i can but still haven't read a complete answer. Where in the HTA does it state that the front license plate must be attached to the front bumper? I have it on the passenger sun visor (if ppl remember the old temp permits that taped to the pass side of windshield) i figured that this spot would be the same. However now they have got rid of…
My son was returning from school and was just entering the driveway when another vehicle hit the rear end. Police writes a ticket "fail to yield from private drive" 139(i). He is going to fight this ticket and made an application for disclosure. The trial is next week and he still hasn't received the disclosure.
He checked with the court last month and they said that they will call when disclosure…
i was travelling on the 401 (posted speed 100km/h) in the far left lane, when i caught up to a vehicle going ~110km/h. I patiently waited for the vehicle to move over a lane, but they did not. The vehicle behind me moved to the center lane to pass, but because he was a safe distance behind me, i moved into the middle lane ahead of him to pass the slower moving car. When I accelerated, i…
So I was returning from my honeymoon in Montreal, and was cruising down the 401 just inside the Ontario/Quebec border. I was passing one of the Onroute stations and saw an OPP cruiser. I checked my speed and I was doing 120. A few kilometers up the road the cruiser pulled me over and told me I was clocked doing 132 by the aircraft. I was a little surprised to see the ticket was for the full…
I made a right turn during prohibited hours (7am-6pm) in Toronto. I was ticketed by a COP who was specially watching for that trap.
After I've received the ticket HTA144(9), I discovered one of the seven digits of my license plate was incorrectly written on my ticket. I was thinking about to make a First Attendance at the court office to see the prosecutor for a reduced charge...any advice or…
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…
I am not sure if my case is really a case of " mis-use parking permit" and need some advises on whether i should fight the ticket. Here is what happened:
During the labor day long weekend, I took my parents to diner at a local shopping mall. (my father's hip was broken in 2016 and he's been on wheelchair since, the permit is in his name and I been using the permit to help him for doctor's…
I have a court date coming up where I need to subpoena one of the officers that was present when I got my ticket. The issuing officer didn't include the fact that the second one was present at the time in his report (disclosure) but did give me the second officers name and badge number after the judge told him to do it.
What I'm looking for help with is the process of me getting to…
I got pulled over on a 4 lane section fo Highway 7... Thank god I didn't get a stay at home ticket as well or my car impounded.
Officer clocked me at 156 km/h he decided not to impound my car and give me a 149 km/h since it was my first offence and he said I was polite and respectful. I would give this officer a 5/5 review if I could, very polite and respectful.
Long story short, I was driving from Toronto to Ottawa and around Napanee with my friend in two separated cars, the officer was parked on uturn. He followed us turn his light on and got between us and pulled us over, he told me that i was running at 152 km/h without showing me his LISAR. they suspended my and my friends license and impounded the two cars for 7 days. This was a Friday in January…
I'm unsure on what to do here. I was under the impression that I could request a stay on the day of trial because disclosure was not given to me in an adequate time. I requested disclosure 2x by fax, 5 months ago.
I read on ticketcombat that I had to file a motion 15 days prior to the trial to request a stay of proceedings.
Does anyone else get blinded by fog lights on rural roads? I don't seem to have a problem with them on lighted streets, but the badly aimed fog lights or ones with a poor cutoff really get to me when driving the Escort. I just came back from a 20-minute drive, and every single pickup truck had fog lights on, and forced me to focus on the bottom right of the road. My windshield is clean and…
