Speeding Ticket (possible fatal error)

Moderators: admin, hwybear, Radar Identified, Reflections, Decatur, bend

Red Cliff
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:42 am

Speeding Ticket (possible fatal error)

by: Red Cliff on
Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:31 am

Hi. I just got a ticket with the offence indicated as "SPEEDING KM/HR IN A KM/HR ZONE" below said remark Violation of HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT Section 128.

This happened in Pickering in a 60km/hr zone early in the morning when I did not notice that I was already speeding over the limit. Actually the police showed me the radar that I went 89km/hr. The police told me that he won't give me a hard time and just set fine of $25 (total payable $40) with no demerit points. I'm just worried that if conviction is made, this will stay in my record and impact my insurance premium.

I'm wondering if, during the trial, I could move for the quashal of the offense charged "SPEEDING KM/HR IN A KM/HR ZONE" is unknown to law. And by the way, if I would request for disclosure from the prosecutor, which will show this offense charge, will it not work against me so that the prosecutor equirecan amend the charge. What if during the trial, the witness (police officer) can show evidence of the actual speed registered in the radar and his notes, will this defense of fatal error still work?

In addition, what does the signature requirement in the ticket mean? Does it have to be the handwritten signature? The ticket issued me just indicates the police officer's name printed electronically with no handwritten signature and I'm wondering if there is an opportunity to raise fatal error. I'm not sure if this is a case of an electronic signature.

I would appreciate your opinion of the matters above.

Thanks and regards,

Red Cliff


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:47 am

Others more savvy in the steps will help, but I think when the ticket is filed the JP will quash it as face value is not correct?

The electronic signature/print has been around for several years, no issue with that
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


Red Cliff
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:42 am

by: Red Cliff on
Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:31 pm

Hi Hwybear,

Thanks for your opinion. So, given the ticket indicating as offence only "SPEEDING KM/HR IN A KM/HR ZONE" the JP will automatically dismiss the trial without referring to other evidence by allowing the prosecutor to present/submit these evidence (eg radar reading 89km/hr, notes from police officer, testimony of witness police officer)? Will there still be a trial, in the first place given this circumstance? When the prosecutor files the case, will he present a copy of the ticket to the court?

I'm thinking if the prosecution overcomes this fatal error, and the trial proceeds, can I say that the reason why I sped up was because of severe stomach pain (that I need to find the nearest McDonalds or Tim Hortons to use its washroom). This actually happened. I had an experience with that kind of pain that I almost collapsed years ago. I felt that I was losing energy probably because my blood was concentrating in my stomach. So, when I realized that it was happening again and being aware that I was in the middle of a farm area that if I collapse no one can help me in an effective and efficient manner, I decided to speed a bit. I thought that it could mean harm to myself that I accelerated as a matter of necessity. I'm just not sure now if strict compliance with law given that by doing so your life is already in danger would still be reasonable. Please advise if this can be used as a defense and has its basis in law.

Regards,

Red


Stanton
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 2111
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:49 pm
Location: Ontario

by: Stanton on
Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:14 pm

Search the forum for threads dealing with forcing a fatal error. You don't want to go to trial since the error can simply be amended.

If you do go to trial arguing you needed to use a washroom will not meet the criteria of duress to justify speeding.






User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:11 am

iFly55 wrote:
viper1 wrote:I think that your set-fine is wrong.

Cheers
Viper1
OP suggests that the officer gave him a reduction, and the set fine and total payable is consistent with a +10km/hr charge.
OP states no numerical values for speed or zone
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


Red Cliff
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:42 am

by: Red Cliff on
Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:20 am

Hi Guys,

Thank you for taking time on my issue. Henceforth, what course of action do I have to take?

Notice of Offence states offence as "SPEEDING KM/HR IN A KM/HR ZONE"
- Is it wise to ignore while the notice states among others that if I do not exercise any of the 3 enumerated options w/in 15 days, it is deemed that I am not
disputing the charge and a conviction will be automatically entered plus additional costs will be imposed. Nevertheless, there is still an opportunity to appeal.
- If I go for a trial, possibility is that JP will instruct the prosecutor to amend the charge? In the first place, why would the prosecutor file the case when he sees
this fatal error in the notice? Perhaps, he will base it from other evidence (eg. radar reading) such that when he will file the charge, he will not indicate the
offence as "SPEEDING KM/HR IN A KM/HR ZONE", instead SPEEDING 89KM/HR IN A 60KM/HR ZONE? Is this a possibility?

SPEEDING 89KM/HR IN A 60KM/HR ZONE
- It was due to necessity that I decided to speed up. I did some research that violation of the HW Traffic Act is an absolute liability offence. Intent is not an
element yet necessity is a defence. The following has to be satisfied in order for necessity be successful as a defence ( R. v. Latimer (2001)):
1. the accused must be in imminent peril or danger
2. the accused must have had no reasonable legal alternative to the course of action he or she undertook
3. the harm inflicted by the accused must be proportional to the harm avoided by the accused

Thanks,

Red


ynotp
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:08 pm
Location: Ontario

Posting Awards

by: ynotp on
Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:33 pm

If the ticket does not state the speed you were travelling at and the limit of the posted zone they you would be well advised to follow Stanton's advice and go the forcing a fatal error route. Forget about everything else.




OPS Copper
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:06 pm

by: OPS Copper on
Wed Mar 12, 2014 5:58 pm

love the necessity defense, You speed and were stopped and delayed even longer than had you driven at the speed limit. Think about that for a minute.

Due to the delay you did not die or need an ambulance so really there is no necessity to speed. The fact that none of those happened on the stop proves that.

ops


Red Cliff
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:42 am

by: Red Cliff on
Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:55 pm

Hi Guys. Thanks for your advice. I really appreciate it.

OPS Copper, you're right. Thanks too for pointing it out. The intensity of the pain then was not the same as the past experience. I was just anticipating it could happen which I was really trying to avoid. Anyway, this is a difficult route. Besides, forcing a fatal error indeed is a far better route.

I'll be researching about forcing a fatal error. If you have inputs on steps about this, please...

Regards once again.

Red


Red Cliff
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:42 am

by: Red Cliff on
Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:51 pm

Hi,

I just found something in CANLII on the subject Provincial Offences Act, RSO 1990, c P.33 which states among others...

Deemed not to dispute charge
9. (1) A defendant is deemed to not wish to dispute the charge where,
(a) at least 15 days have elapsed after the defendant was served with the offence notice and the defendant did not give notice of intention to appear under
section 5, did not request a meeting with the prosecutor in accordance with section 5.1 and did not plead guilty under section 7 or 8;
(b) the defendant requested a meeting with the prosecutor in accordance with section 5.1 but did not attend the scheduled meeting with the prosecutor; or
(c) the defendant reached an agreement with the prosecutor under subsection 5.1 (7) but did not appear at a sentencing hearing with a justice under
subsection 5.1 (8). 2009, c. 33, Sched. 4, s. 1 (13).

Action by justice
(2) Where a defendant is deemed to not wish to dispute the charge, a justice shall examine the certificate of offence and shall,
(a) where the certificate of offence is complete and regular on its face, enter a conviction in the defendant’s absence and without a hearing and impose the
set fine for the offence; or
(b) where the certificate of offence is not complete and regular on its face, quash the proceeding. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 4, s. 1 (13).

I'm thinking of taking the following steps:
1. Ignore the offence notice until the 15-day period lapses (under POA 9.1.a)
2. Hope for the Justice to act in accordance with POA 9.2.b
3. If justice does not, then appeal from the conviction (I wish it ends in #2)

Please advise if I am in the right track in forcing the fatal error.

Thanks again,

Red


ynotp
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:08 pm
Location: Ontario

Posting Awards

by: ynotp on
Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:35 pm

You got it, simple do nothing (ignore the ticket) and a justice of the peace will quash the ticket after 15 days. If you go to court for trial they will amend the ticket so that it is correct so you do not want to do that. If the justice doesnt notice the error on the ticket you can appeal.

Just be sure that you indeed have a fatal error. I would scan your ticket and post it here (delete your name, plate and offence number) because the whole point of electronic tickets is to avoid errors.




Post Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “General Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests