I am out on bail facing criminal charges. Police cruiser behind me runs my plates and notices I'm out on bail while waiting for my trial date. My conditions require me to be home daily between 9pm-6am. I was pulled over on an afternoon. When asked why I am pulled over the officer replies "Your conditions weren't clear". What wasn't clear enough? This is not the first officer to take interest in me, just the first to pull me over. The others just follow me for a few kilometers and get lost. This one followed me for less than 10 seconds before turning the lights on. This is where I realize I don't have my driver's licence on me. I have insurance and ownership but no licence. So after calling dispatch and digging through my records the officer comes back after a solid 15 minutes and issues me a failure to suspend licence ticket. Can I fight this ticket on the grounds that I should have not been pulled over in the first place? I must provide a licence if the officer has a legitimate reason for pulling me over. I was pulled over because the officer didn't know if afternoon falls between the hours of 9pm and 6am. The other officers did but this one needed an explanation from dispatch. Highway Traffic Act 33. (1) Every driver of a motor vehicle or street car shall carry his or her licence with him or her at all times while he or she is in charge of a motor vehicle or street car and shall surrender the licence for reasonable inspection upon the demand of a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 33 (1).
I am out on bail facing criminal charges. Police cruiser behind me runs my plates and notices I'm out on bail while waiting for my trial date. My conditions require me to be home daily between 9pm-6am. I was pulled over on an afternoon. When asked why I am pulled over the officer replies "Your conditions weren't clear".
What wasn't clear enough? This is not the first officer to take interest in me, just the first to pull me over. The others just follow me for a few kilometers and get lost. This one followed me for less than 10 seconds before turning the lights on. This is where I realize I don't have my driver's licence on me. I have insurance and ownership but no licence. So after calling dispatch and digging through my records the officer comes back after a solid 15 minutes and issues me a failure to suspend licence ticket.
Can I fight this ticket on the grounds that I should have not been pulled over in the first place?
I must provide a licence if the officer has a legitimate reason for pulling me over. I was pulled over because the officer didn't know if afternoon falls between the hours of 9pm and 6am. The other officers did but this one needed an explanation from dispatch.
Highway Traffic Act 33. (1) Every driver of a motor vehicle or street car shall carry his or her licence with him or her at all times while he or she is in charge of a motor vehicle or street car and shall surrender the licence for reasonable inspection upon the demand of a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 33 (1).
Agreed. In Ontario, officers can pull over any vehicle at any time to check for license, insurance, permit. They don't need any other reason other than you're behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. If there's no other valid reason for holding you and everything checks out, you should be free to go. Seeing how you didn't have your license, it's kind of hard to argue you shouldn't have been pulled over.
argyll wrote:
The courts have upheld that motorists can be pulled over at any time to check the driver's documentation.
Agreed. In Ontario, officers can pull over any vehicle at any time to check for license, insurance, permit. They don't need any other reason other than you're behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. If there's no other valid reason for holding you and everything checks out, you should be free to go. Seeing how you didn't have your license, it's kind of hard to argue you shouldn't have been pulled over.
My immediate thoughts when you made that initial statement were that it is a blatant Charter infringement. This case acknowledges that, unfortunately without being able to read the entire case - I cannot understand the ruling. It contradicts random stops because it says... "Per Dickson C.J. and Wilson, La Forest and Sopinka JJ.: The unlimited right of police officers to stop motor vehicles without any reason cannot be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. The evidence here, however, should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter." It then goes on to say: "The random stop constituted an arbitrary detention. The Crown's efforts to discharge its s. 1 onus must be viewed in the context of the s. 9 breaches sanctioned to date in meeting the objective of ridding the highways of dangerous drivers. Police officers are entitled to stop motorists at organized check points as part of the R.I.D.E. program to provide a roadside screening test of sobriety and to check for licences, insurance and mechanical fitness. The organized check point is available, therefore, as a means of detection of the unlicensed driver. This case may be viewed as the last straw. If sanctioned, a police officer could stop any vehicle at any time, in any place, without having any reason to do so. For the motorist, this would mean a total negation of the freedom from arbitrary detention guaranteed by s. 9 of the Charter. The Crown has not demonstrated that this unrestricted power is a necessary addition to the impressive array of enforcement methods which are available. Random checking at a stationary, predetermined location infringes the right much less than the unlimited right contended for. It is somewhat more carefully designed to serve enforcement, and is less intrusive and not as open to abuse as the unlimited power sought to be justified. The roving random stop, by contrast, would permit any individual officer to stop any vehicle, at any time, at any place. The decision may be based on any whim. The unlimited power has the potential of being much more intrusive and occasioning a greater invasion of privacy." Based on what I am reading, and correct me if I'm wrong or you have the full case law. The Supreme Court DID NOT rule that a police officer can randomly stop anyone whenever he wants 'based on a whim' because that gives them unlimited power that is not justified and infringes the Charter. They argued that R.I.D.E programs and random checkpoints are sufficient enough to deter motorists, and that infringes minimally on the Charter. They argued if this was sanctioned, it would give the police unlimited power - and refused to sanction it. (To my understanding) Unless I'm mistaken here (feel free to point it out if I am because it's entirely possible) the ruling suggests that random stops (i.e - a police man pulling you over on the road) for no reason is not supported, reasonable and infringes on the Charter and is therefore not legal, contrary to your earlier statement.
My immediate thoughts when you made that initial statement were that it is a blatant Charter infringement. This case acknowledges that, unfortunately without being able to read the entire case - I cannot understand the ruling. It contradicts random stops because it says...
"Per Dickson C.J. and Wilson, La Forest and Sopinka JJ.: The unlimited right of police officers to stop motor vehicles without any reason cannot be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. The evidence here, however, should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter."
It then goes on to say:
"The random stop constituted an arbitrary detention. The Crown's efforts to discharge its s. 1 onus must be viewed in the context of the s. 9 breaches sanctioned to date in meeting the objective of ridding the highways of dangerous drivers. Police officers are entitled to stop motorists at organized check points as part of the R.I.D.E. program to provide a roadside screening test of sobriety and to check for licences, insurance and mechanical fitness.The organized check point is available, therefore, as a means of detection of the unlicensed driver. This case may be viewed as the last straw. If sanctioned, a police officer could stop any vehicle at any time, in any place, without having any reason to do so. For the motorist, this would mean a total negation of the freedom from arbitrary detention guaranteed by s. 9 of the Charter.
The Crown has not demonstrated that this unrestricted power is a necessary addition to the impressive array of enforcement methods which are available.Random checking at a stationary, predetermined location infringes the right much less than the unlimited right contended for. It is somewhat more carefully designed to serve enforcement, and is less intrusive and not as open to abuse as the unlimited power sought to be justified. The roving random stop, by contrast, would permit any individual officer to stop any vehicle, at any time, at any place. The decision may be based on any whim. The unlimited power has the potential of being much more intrusive and occasioning a greater invasion of privacy."
Based on what I am reading, and correct me if I'm wrong or you have the full case law. The Supreme Court DID NOT rule that a police officer can randomly stop anyone whenever he wants 'based on a whim' because that gives them unlimited power that is not justified and infringes the Charter. They argued that R.I.D.E programs and random checkpoints are sufficient enough to deter motorists, and that infringes minimally on the Charter. They argued if this was sanctioned, it would give the police unlimited power - and refused to sanction it. (To my understanding)
Unless I'm mistaken here (feel free to point it out if I am because it's entirely possible) the ruling suggests that random stops (i.e - a police man pulling you over on the road) for no reason is not supported, reasonable and infringes on the Charter and is therefore not legal, contrary to your earlier statement.
Agreed. In Ontario, officers can pull over any vehicle at any time to check for license, insurance, permit. They don't need any other reason other than you're behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. If there's no other valid reason for holding you and everything checks out, you should be free to go. Seeing how you didn't have your license, it's kind of hard to argue you shouldn't have been pulled over. Incorrect, unless you have a different source - the Supreme Court ruled exactly against this. They said random checkpoints are more than sufficient enough to deter drivers, there's no need for random stops as it's a blatant Charter infringement that isn't deemed necessary or reasonable. To the second part, it is impossible to know if he had his license on him WITHOUT stopping him first. If they weren't legally permitted to stop him, that evidence would NOT be admissible in court, and cannot be used to prosecute him - in other words, there's absolutely no case if you can prove the stop was unlawful in the first place. In regards to the complete situation at hand, the police officer is going to argue that he stopped you because you had a condition on your bail and he was unsure if it had been violated or not, which may be ruled sufficient. It wasn't random in the sense that he didn't just decide he felt like stopping you, he was actually confused by something and wanted to make sure something checks out - for that reason, the case may be difficult.
bend wrote:
argyll wrote:
The courts have upheld that motorists can be pulled over at any time to check the driver's documentation.
Agreed. In Ontario, officers can pull over any vehicle at any time to check for license, insurance, permit. They don't need any other reason other than you're behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. If there's no other valid reason for holding you and everything checks out, you should be free to go. Seeing how you didn't have your license, it's kind of hard to argue you shouldn't have been pulled over.
Incorrect, unless you have a different source - the Supreme Court ruled exactly against this. They said random checkpoints are more than sufficient enough to deter drivers, there's no need for random stops as it's a blatant Charter infringement that isn't deemed necessary or reasonable.
To the second part, it is impossible to know if he had his license on him WITHOUT stopping him first. If they weren't legally permitted to stop him, that evidence would NOT be admissible in court, and cannot be used to prosecute him - in other words, there's absolutely no case if you can prove the stop was unlawful in the first place.
In regards to the complete situation at hand, the police officer is going to argue that he stopped you because you had a condition on your bail and he was unsure if it had been violated or not, which may be ruled sufficient. It wasn't random in the sense that he didn't just decide he felt like stopping you, he was actually confused by something and wanted to make sure something checks out - for that reason, the case may be difficult.
The point was he can be stopped at anytime to provide documentation. The OP believes the reasoning for his stop was an entryway, (which was probably warranted anyways based on the information the officer had in front of him) led to the officer getting his license. Getting his license doesn't hinge on a chain of events. Obviously, you don't agree. We'll agree to disagree.
Sonic wrote:
To the second part, it is impossible to know if he had his license on him WITHOUT stopping him first. If they weren't legally permitted to stop him, that evidence would NOT be admissible in court, and cannot be used to prosecute him - in other words, there's absolutely no case if you can prove the stop was unlawful in the first place.
The point was he can be stopped at anytime to provide documentation. The OP believes the reasoning for his stop was an entryway, (which was probably warranted anyways based on the information the officer had in front of him) led to the officer getting his license. Getting his license doesn't hinge on a chain of events. Obviously, you don't agree. We'll agree to disagree.
The point was he can be stopped at anytime to provide documentation. The OP believes the reasoning for his stop was an entryway, (which was probably warranted anyways based on the information the officer had in front of him) led to the officer getting his license. Getting his license doesn't hinge on a chain of events. Obviously, you don't agree. We'll agree to disagree. He CAN'T be stopped at any time to provide documentation without cause. Are you not reading the case law in front of you? In law, there's a terminology called 'admissible evidence'. You can't use ALL the evidence you have in the cases where it was not obtained lawfully. For example, say you have an unregistered (illegal) gun in your home. If a cop decides he's in the mood to break down your door for no reason, walks in and finds the gun - he cannot charge you for holding it. The same applies to your rights to retain legal representation - if a police officer did not inform you of your rights to legal representation and then interrogated you and you confessed to murdering someone - none of that evidence is court admissible. Even though you, yourself, confessed to murder. The reason? Your Chartered rights were infringed, the gun was unlawfully attained/you were denied your right to legal representation and therefore it will NOT be admissible in court. The ONLY time he can be stopped without cause is during (as noted by the Supreme Court) random checkpoints. In other words, when there is a checkpoint stopping EVERYONE that passes by to check for things. You cannot single out an individual for no reason at all. I'm not arguing that the officer stopped him for no reason at all (as noted earlier - bail conditions issue) - I'm just saying you cannot be "stopped at any time to provide documentation" without reasonable cause. The Supreme Court and Canadian Charter have laws against this - if you're going to constantly keep making comments like that - please CITE it - give us a source. You're misleading people with your comments here - the police have strict rules that have to abide by as well - unless you actually have evidence that a police officer can stop you at any time because he feels like it - please stop yourself from misleading people.
bend wrote:
Sonic wrote:
To the second part, it is impossible to know if he had his license on him WITHOUT stopping him first. If they weren't legally permitted to stop him, that evidence would NOT be admissible in court, and cannot be used to prosecute him - in other words, there's absolutely no case if you can prove the stop was unlawful in the first place.
The point was he can be stopped at anytime to provide documentation. The OP believes the reasoning for his stop was an entryway, (which was probably warranted anyways based on the information the officer had in front of him) led to the officer getting his license. Getting his license doesn't hinge on a chain of events. Obviously, you don't agree. We'll agree to disagree.
He CAN'T be stopped at any time to provide documentation without cause. Are you not reading the case law in front of you? In law, there's a terminology called 'admissible evidence'. You can't use ALL the evidence you have in the cases where it was not obtained lawfully. For example, say you have an unregistered (illegal) gun in your home. If a cop decides he's in the mood to break down your door for no reason, walks in and finds the gun - he cannot charge you for holding it. The same applies to your rights to retain legal representation - if a police officer did not inform you of your rights to legal representation and then interrogated you and you confessed to murdering someone - none of that evidence is court admissible. Even though you, yourself, confessed to murder. The reason? Your Chartered rights were infringed, the gun was unlawfully attained/you were denied your right to legal representation and therefore it will NOT be admissible in court.
The ONLY time he can be stopped without cause is during (as noted by the Supreme Court) random checkpoints. In other words, when there is a checkpoint stopping EVERYONE that passes by to check for things. You cannot single out an individual for no reason at all. I'm not arguing that the officer stopped him for no reason at all (as noted earlier - bail conditions issue) - I'm just saying you cannot be "stopped at any time to provide documentation" without reasonable cause. The Supreme Court and Canadian Charter have laws against this - if you're going to constantly keep making comments like that - please CITE it - give us a source. You're misleading people with your comments here - the police have strict rules that have to abide by as well - unless you actually have evidence that a police officer can stop you at any time because he feels like it - please stop yourself from misleading people.
Based on what? I just read it and it confirmed everything I was saying. The Supreme Court failed to give police the ability to stop any driver without cause.
Decatur wrote:
Here's the link to the decision. Read it or don't.
Based on what? I just read it and it confirmed everything I was saying. The Supreme Court failed to give police the ability to stop any driver without cause.
I'll just post the key stuff right here: And further above in the text: The majority decision of the SCOC was that it was permissible to randomly stop drivers, outside of a RIDE program. EDIT: Just to add, agree or disagree, that's what they said. Truth be told, I haven't been "randomly" stopped. I've been stopped often enough for legit reasons, namely the fact that I tend to drive with the pedal on the floor (not that I suggest others do the same). To steer this back on track, for the OP: The best avenue for this one is to try to take it to trial, or an early resolution. It's a very easy charge for them to prove. When you go to court or the First Attendance meeting, you can try explaining to the Prosecutor you made a mistake, you realized it when the officer stopped you, etc. Sometimes they have bigger fish to fry and withdraw the charge, or they offer something else. No guarantees, but that's about your best option at this point. Or, there's an isolated chance the cop may not show up for the court date (don't bet on that one).
I'll just post the key stuff right here:
Conclusion
While the routine check is an arbitrary detention in violation of s. 9 of the Charter, the infringement is one that is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. As a result, s. 189a(1) of the Highway Traffic Act is a valid and constitutional legislative enactment. There is no need to read the section down as did Tarnopolsky J.A. in the Court of Appeal or to qualify it in any way. Having come to this result, it is not necessary to deal with the arguments raised under s. 24(2).
The answers to the constitutional questions posed are:
1.Is section 189a(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 198, as amended by s. 2 of the Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1981 (No. 3), S.O. 1981, c. 72, inconsistent with ss. 7, 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the extent that it authorizes the random stop of a motor vehicle and its driver by a police officer acting without any reasonable grounds or other articulable cause to believe that an offence has been committed, when such stop is not part of an organized procedure such as the R.I.D.E. programme?
Answer:Section 189a(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 198 as amended by s. 2 of the Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1981 (No. 3), S.O. 1981, c. 72, is not inconsistent with ss. 7 or 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but is inconsistent with s. 9.
2.If the answer to question 1 lies in the affirmative, can s. 189a(1) of the Highway Traffic Act be justified pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter?
Answer:Section 189a(1) of the Highway Traffic Act can be justified pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter.
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
And further above in the text:
The means chosen is the incidental random spot check, not part of an organized program like R.I.D.E. and not a stop based on some articulable cause. It is now well settled that these latter methods of stopping drivers are justifiable under s. 1. (See Dedman, supra, Hufsky, supra, and the lower court judgment in this case, in particular the judgment of Tarnopolsky J.A. of the Court of Appeal.)
In my view the random stop is rationally connected and carefully designed to achieve safety on the highways. The stops impair as little as possible the rights of the driver. In addition, the stops do not so severely trench on individual rights that the legislative objective is outweighed by the abridgement of the individual's rights.
The majority decision of the SCOC was that it was permissible to randomly stop drivers, outside of a RIDE program.
EDIT: Just to add, agree or disagree, that's what they said. Truth be told, I haven't been "randomly" stopped. I've been stopped often enough for legit reasons, namely the fact that I tend to drive with the pedal on the floor (not that I suggest others do the same).
To steer this back on track, for the OP: The best avenue for this one is to try to take it to trial, or an early resolution. It's a very easy charge for them to prove. When you go to court or the First Attendance meeting, you can try explaining to the Prosecutor you made a mistake, you realized it when the officer stopped you, etc. Sometimes they have bigger fish to fry and withdraw the charge, or they offer something else. No guarantees, but that's about your best option at this point. Or, there's an isolated chance the cop may not show up for the court date (don't bet on that one).
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
Oh wow, my apologies here to you guys. I obviously need to spend a few more years becoming well-versed in the law regarding the HTA. It's contradicting because in criminal law, they cannot stop you without reasonable cause. When charged with an offence, you are in theory being criminally charged (as opposed to civily) - therefore the laws regarding the Charter 'should' be in affect. I disagree with: Simply because, giving cops this privilege allows it to be a 'witch hunt'. What stops cops from racial profiling, what stops cops from being nuisances to certain individuals because they can? Nothing. Particularly, the case ruled one of the reasons for approving this as the 'cost of programs' such as RIDE, etc, organized stops not being reasonably affordable in rural areas - I find that a poor excuse. In reading over the law, it's hard to get all the facts right now because I can't access the act they are citing (due to changes in the HTA) - but it serves no purpose in arguing against the SCC no matter how absurd I may find it. Once again apologies, I was wrong in the matter. Concerning the bolded - the irony of it is, now, 25 years later - that can be seriously disputed, in multiple facets, but I won't get into that.
Oh wow, my apologies here to you guys. I obviously need to spend a few more years becoming well-versed in the law regarding the HTA. It's contradicting because in criminal law, they cannot stop you without reasonable cause. When charged with an offence, you are in theory being criminally charged (as opposed to civily) - therefore the laws regarding the Charter 'should' be in affect.
I disagree with:
Officers can stop persons only for legal reasons -- in this case reasons related to driving a car such as checking the driver's licence and insurance, the sobriety of the driver and the mechanical fitness of the vehicle.
Simply because, giving cops this privilege allows it to be a 'witch hunt'. What stops cops from racial profiling, what stops cops from being nuisances to certain individuals because they can? Nothing. Particularly, the case ruled one of the reasons for approving this as the 'cost of programs' such as RIDE, etc, organized stops not being reasonably affordable in rural areas - I find that a poor excuse. In reading over the law, it's hard to get all the facts right now because I can't access the act they are citing (due to changes in the HTA) - but it serves no purpose in arguing against the SCC no matter how absurd I may find it.
Once again apologies, I was wrong in the matter.
Finally, it must be shown that the routine check does not so severely trench upon the s. 9 right so as to outweigh the legislative objective. The concern at this stage is the perceived potential for abuse of this power by law enforcement officials. In my opinion, these fears are unfounded. There are mechanisms already in place which prevent abuse. Officers can stop persons only for legal reasons, in this case reasons related to driving a car such as checking the driver's licence and insurance, the sobriety of the driver and the mechanical fitness of the vehicle. Once stopped the only questions that may justifiably be asked are those related to driving offences. Any further, more intrusive procedures could only be undertaken based upon reasonable and probable grounds. Where a stop is found to be unlawful, the evidence from the stop could well be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
Concerning the bolded - the irony of it is, now, 25 years later - that can be seriously disputed, in multiple facets, but I won't get into that.
Hi so I have a bizzare situation. Today I received a summons for "being the owner of a motor vehicle bearing Vehicle Identification Number ###, failed to submit the vehicle, equipment or drawn vehicle for inspection or tests as required by an officer" for a vehicle I previously owned. Apparently a violation of HTA 82(9).
The date of offense is June 15, the summons was issued on October 26th and I…
Hi, I need some help for the ticket of lmproper left turn.
When i drove my car from east to west, intending to make a left turn and stop in front of stop line. There was a car in front of me, which has turn on yellow light. The light was turning red and then I thought I cannot leave in the intersection and turned, an incoming car was runing the light and hit me. No one got hurt but both cars had…
Have a ticket in which the radar used was a Genesis VP Directional. I had downloaded the manual for a Genesis VP but I now realize that the unit is not the same so it is the wrong manual. My trial is very soon so I do not have time to ask for disclosure of the manual.
Does anyone have access to an electronic version of the manual for Genesis VP Directional?
I was pulled over today in the city of Oakville for going 75 in a 40 zone. However, I am 100 percent certain that I was going only 50 in the 40 zone. When I was pulled over, I was driving my Dad's car which I felt was the reason I was getting stopped since two teenagers driving a 2013 S Class. He asked does I know why I am being pulled over and I…
I really need help on fighting my 9 tickets i received from one police officer. Here is some background of what happened!
I was caught speeding 66km on a 40km (school zone) on January 29, 2010. I was driving my friend's car and turns out she didnt renew the validation on the vehicle and didnt leave the up to date insurance paper on the car.
Hey question that I think here's probably the best place to get the answer:
I was charged with a careless driving offence in oct, trail in early april, so as of right now my insurance record is 100% clean... except the officer did file an accident report at the scene where I was classified at fault due to it being PI (although very minor). The person I hit did not sue etc, so the insurance company…
Very much unintentionally passed a stopped bus, with sign and flashing lights. Didn't realize I had done it until I was at the end of the bus. I'll save you my sob story, but it was truly accidental. I'm generally very cautious and have a perfect driving record. Never been stopped.
While I realize if a cop had seen me that I would have gotten a ticket, there were none in sight. Though I may very…
I was recently pulled over for running a red and I wasnt able to find my wallet in the car at the time to hand over my license. I had a passport in the vehicle that he used. The wallet was in the vehicle, it just fell through the seats. (Tough to find a black leather wallet in a black/black leather truck at night).
The officer still wrote the tickets for both he signed the one ticket (failure to…
I was passing a vehicle that was going slow for me and there was an oncoming vehicle coming at me. I speed up to get around the person I was passing and the oncoming vehicle turns out to be a cop who turns around and tickets me for going 110km in a 80km zone. How does it work with passing a vehicle? Once I passed the vehicle I went back down to my original speed of just under 100. The officer…
I picked up a brand new (old stock) Fuzzbuster a while ago at auction (wopping $5!!) and I want to mount it on the dash of my old GTO as a cool accessory when I show it at car shows. But I'm not sure if it's legal or not.
Here's my thoughts:
- It is early 70's technology (x-band) so it won't detect modern police radar. That's assuming no police force uses the old x-band frequency.
Hi guys, I'm still a little in shock of getting my first traffic ticket...
On Monday afternoon, I was returning from Toronto to Ottawa on HW416, I was driving about 15 over 100 like always. Then a car came very close to me on the left lane and made me nervous, I speed up unintentionally to pass the car and change lane, but while doing that a police car pull out of the median. He was hiding in…
May i ask this question regarding transport trucks limited to 105 km/h. Moving road blocks or safety?
IMO it isnt speed that kills. I find transport trucks infact help keep the road going. With cars that choose to not move to the right and slow down the middle lane the trucks would try to pass in their passing lane therefore the slower traffic would move right.
Received a notice from the police that a motion is being put forward to adjourn upcoming trial date. Notice indicates that an officer has sworn an affidavit that the crucial witness cannot attend date trial is set for (we know there is a social engagement at 7:30 pm for the witness, trial time is 1:30 pm). This further delay is a big problem to my daughter's case. She is moving away to…
This is what happened. I was travelling west on a four lane city street that was very light with traffic. I was making a left hand turn into a wide driveway of a business. There was traffic lights about 100 yards past the driveway and were red for the east-west traffic. I was in the left lane with my signal on and there was no oncoming traffic due to the red light. I was slowed right down…
I was driving my families older car and got pulled over, and the police officer informed me my plate was dirty. He issued me a ticket of $110 for the 13(2) act and obstruct plate as the offense. He informed me that such a plate could be used to avoid red lights as well as 407 tolls, also that buying a new plate can help to lower the ticket if I fight the charge, and that he also took a picture…
I received a red light camera ticket. In the picture, you see an ambulance in front of me with flashing lights. I had moved to alleviate the traffic behind me for the emergency vehicles coming behind it.
Is this a possible defense, if so, does anyone know any good case law to justify this position?
what happens if they charge someone for driving at 151Km/hr in montreal and they put for trial, appear after some months and sadly lost the trial ?
In montreal its $300 fine and 5demerit points ...
I heard Ontario and Qubec share the information. So once the trial is over ( and when the file moved to ontario) will his car gets towed and licence get suspended for 7days (later to 30 days ) ? and he…
I got a notice in the mail that trial is set four weeks from today, so it's time to request disclosure. I have zero chance of getting an 11b since trial is less than two months after the offense date and the officer did not reduce the charge. I really want to try and create delays on the trial, to reduce the chance of the officer showing up on multiple occasions. Is there any known loop-holes…
This weekend my father was involved in an accident with a transit bus in Burlington, ON. After the police showed up he was charged with "Fail to obey stop sign" Sec. 136(1)(a). At this particular intersection there NO stop signs but there are traffic lights. There is construction going on there so one of the light posts is smaller.
Driving conditions were terribly wet and visibility was low.…
So my boyfriend and I recently started dating. I have a vehicle that was insured. Insurance cost too much and I found it was just as easy to walk to work due to how close it was. But I didn't want to get rid of my car just yet, plus I'm still making payments on it as well. When we moved into our appartment together, I had it towed to my parking spot out back.
I was making a left hand legal turn on a green light, a driver came through the lane I was supposed to be going into ran the red and hit me head on as I was turning into my lane. When the officer came he was telling me that I was racing and driving recklessly because apparently there was reports of street racing in the area. I was not charged on the scene for this but I'm scared i am going to be…
I got a ticket for failure to surrender insurance because I did not have my new insurance stubs with me, just a bunch of expired ones. My policy number has not changed, so I asked the officer to just run the policy number so I could prove that I was in fact insured. He said they don't have that ability, handed me the ticket and reminded me that my car could have been impounded.
So I'm in a bit of a pickle and would appreciate if someone could clarify something for me.
I'm less than a month away (test on April 6th) from getting my full G license, and got a speeding ticket recently. The ticket was for 49km/h over the posted limit of 100km/h on the 403 in Oakville/Halton region, but was reduced from the initial ~60km/h over.
