Violation of Driving Restrictions (Corrective lenses)

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

Post Reply
larry15
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined:

Violation of Driving Restrictions (Corrective lenses)

Unread post by larry15 on

I got a ticket for speeding, and then also got a ticket for not wearing glasses, but I've had laser surgery. I just hadn't gone to change it on my license yet. How serious is this (demerit points, insurance) and should I go to court?
Top

Greatest Canadian
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 68
Joined:

Unread post by Greatest Canadian on

Go notify the MTO of the laser surgery. If they are satisfied that you no longer need to wear glasses than you will not be convicted of the glasses charge...maybe.

But maybe because you didn't notify them prior to the charge the charge might stick, I'm not sure.

Maybe others have dealt with similar matters and know for sure.

As for your speeding ticket, fight it.

What city did you receive the ticket in?

Did you already send in a notice to appear?

How much is the set fine and how much is the total payable?
Top

larry15
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined:

Unread post by larry15 on

I got the ticket in Brampton, going 70 in a 50 zone. The fine is $75, payable $95. I haven't sent anything in, just received it.
Top

Greatest Canadian
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 68
Joined:

Unread post by Greatest Canadian on

Read the thread titled "Even More Ontario Government Corruption"

You can find it in the general section and just a few threads below this one were typing in right now.
Top

larry15
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined:

Unread post by larry15 on

So if I plead guilty and pay the set fines, that's like settling out of court? Won't it still affect my driving record?
Top

Greatest Canadian
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 68
Joined:

Unread post by Greatest Canadian on

Section 8 of the POA states you only have to pay the set fine to settle out of court without a trial. Yes, it will affect your driving record because points are involved. You insurance might go up as well.

But the offence notice you have been issues is completely bogus.

Read it.

It says you must pay the total payable.

The total payable includes two other separate fine amounts.

The offence notice is created by regulation, but the regulation is not in compliance with POA.

When a regualtion and Act conflict the statue governs.

Since the offence notice is not lawful, it is not complete and regular on its face.

If you ignore the tickets and do not repsond to them at all, you will mostly likely be convicted, but you'll win your case on appeal.

The court cannot correct errors on the ticket if you simple ignore them and do not repsond to the ticket at all.

Conversely, if you go to court and explain the rrors to the court, then can fix the errors under POA s. 34 and you can be convicted. You would not then win the case on appeal.

However, if you go to court, the court cannot fix the bogus offence notice that states you must pay the total payable.

Do what you think is best for you.

I would ignore the tickets all together and fight your case on appeal if you are convicted.

Also, your tickets involve demerit points. This means its a provincial matter and the cop was required by law to speak both French and English to you when you were stopped. He never did so. I already know.

He was also required by law to fix out the ticket in both French and English. He didn't do that either did he?


The city of Brampton is also required to have the street signs in both French and Englsih. I bet they don't right?

The speed limit sign must also be in French and English.

It was a 70 kph zone where you were stopped. But on the same road it might have an 80 section, or a 60 section, right?

When the road speed limit goes from 60 to 70 kph, the speed limit sign says 70 begins. The word "begins" must be in French and English, and where the road speed limit goes from 70 to 60 kph, the 70 "ends" sign must have the word "ends" in French and English.

Go see if the signs are in both languages.

I bet they are not.
Top

larry15
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined:

Unread post by larry15 on

Thanks for your help. I'll definitely go check out the signs. I'm not even sure there's any signs on that road.

The officer said he'd drop the "no glasses" charge if I take a vision test, but I just found out the testing centres are closed due to a strike!
Top

User avatar
racer
VIP
VIP
Posts: 959
Joined:
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Contact:
Contact racer

Unread post by racer on

Yup. And my license expired a month ago because the wouldn't even re-test me...
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"

www.OHTA.ca & www.OntarioHighwayTrafficAct.com
Top

amcamx
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 32
Joined:

Unread post by amcamx on

I'm curious as to how the officer ascertained that you were not wearing corrective lenses. Did he specifically ask you if you were wearing contacts or had taken off your glasses? Did he try to test you by asking you to read a distant road sign or something of this nature? What was the specific section you were charged under? Was it this section?

Driving in breach of condition prohibited
31(9) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while contravening a condition contained in his or her driver’s licence or imposed by the regulations. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 32 (9).

Beyond the MTO's webpage which specifically mentions the need for a vision test, does anyone know what exact regulation would hold the specifics of the vision requirements/tests for driving? Kind of curious now as I could not find anything.
Top

cruzmisl
Member
Member
Posts: 107
Joined:

Unread post by cruzmisl on

Is it reg 340/94 S.25?
25. The Minister may impose conditions on a driver’s licence appropriate to the holder’s driving ability in respect of the type of motor vehicle and the special mechanical control devices required on any motor vehicle that the holder may drive, or such other conditions as are appropriate to ensure that the holder drives the motor vehicle safely. O. Reg. 340/94, s. 25.




Top

Post Reply

Return to “General Talk”