Using Centre Lane Improperly

Hi there,

Received a Ticket quoting Section 154(1)(b) of the HTA while driving on a 5 lane highway (two lanes designated in each direction plus a middle centre lane for left turns) in the City of Hamilton on Friday. I was travelling westbound and signalled to make a left hand turn, went into the centre lane designated for both directions to make the left turn, but failed to make the turn because I missed the residential street (streets are poorly indicated and I do not know Waterdown as I've only been there once before). I decided to re-merge with westbound traffic to make the next turn, but Officer (going eastbound) made a u-turn and ticketed me for using the centre lane improperly, telling me that I used the centre lane as a passing lane. I explained to him that I missed the left turn and re-merged with traffic, but he said that he was giving me the ticket because in his estimation I was going "a little fast". I told him that my speed was according to the limit and that I had re-accelerated to merge with traffic. I received no speeding ticket, and I was not speeding according to the posted limit anyhow. He said I was going a little fast for a left turn, and I told him that the street was poorly indicated, so I had aborted the left hand turn and accelerated to merge back in with traffic as I felt I couldn't make the turn safely, and that is why he perceived my speed as "a little fast" for the turn.

When I read the section of the HTA, it doesn't make sense to me. Firstly, I thought three lane highways were those such as QEW, and not 5 lane highways. Do they refer to the centre lane that is used by both directions as the "third" lane? Then, it says that "a vehicle shall not be driven in the centre lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle where the roadway is clearly visible and the centre lane is clear of traffic within a reasonable safe distance, or in preparation for a left turn".

If this is the right subsection, I don't see where I used the centre lane improperly given that this subsection allows me to do what I did, which was to use the centre lane to make the left turn, aborted it, and re-merged with traffic in a safe manner. My intention was to turn left but I did end up coming out ahead of the vehicle that was directly ahead of me before I signalled to the centre lane because I had decellerated down from about 55km, he was doing about 40-45 in a 60km zone (and had accumulated a line behind him, with the driver behind me closing in behind him thus preventing me from re-merging in my old spot), so I accellerated because I needed to get out of the turning lane, and he was just a little bit behind me when I aborted the turn (the nose of his vehicle was at my front passenger door). In any event, the subsection allows this according to the bolded print above, so I am a little confused.

Could someone provide some clarification on this section of the HTA? The last ticket I got was for having my front licence plate removed (somebody ripped it off while it was parked on the street unbeknownst to me, so I didn't even know it was gone!!!) in 1995, so I haven't had this situation happen to me, and especially not a moving violation such as this. I'm a bit taken aback. I am also a paralegal (but in Real Estate) so while I did study the HTA along with the POA, it's not in practice. I know a little knowledge is more dangerous than none at all, so I am here hoping someone can clear this up for me. Many, MANY thanks in advance.

Where highway divided into lanes - 154.

(1) Where a highway has been divided into clearly marked lanes for traffic,

(a) a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as may be practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety;

(b) in the case of a highway that is divided into three lanes, a vehicle shall not be driven in the centre lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle where the roadway is clearly visible and the centre lane is clear of traffic within a reasonable safe distance, or in preparation for a left turn, or where the centre lane is at the time designated for the use of traffic moving in the direction in which the vehicle is proceeding and official signs are erected to indicate the designation;

(c) any lane may be designated for slowly moving traffic, traffic moving in a particular direction or classes or types of vehicles and, despite section 141, where a lane is so designated and official signs indicating the designation are erected, every driver shall obey the instructions on the official signs. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 154 (1).

Exception

(2) Where safety is not jeopardized, clauses (1) (b) and (c) do not apply to road service vehicles and clause (1) (c) does not apply to road-building machines or apparatus while engaged in the construction of a highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 154 (2).

Unfortunately you can't really argue on the road side. You'll have to explain the situation in court.

Hi Reflections, thanks for your response.

There was no argument, and actually the both of us were quite professional and pleasant despite the circumstances. An explanation of what transpired when he first approached my car and told me I used the centre lane for passing was really all that took place, and he was also gracious enough to give me directions to the street I was actually looking for when I asked.

I did correct him though when he told me it was zero points.

I'm still not understanding why this Section was cited when it says that the centre lane CAN be used in such a manner?

Did you receive an offence notice or summons along with the certificate of offence?

If Waterdown is not part of a prescribed part of Ontario within the meaning of the POA your ticket is unenforcable. Check the list below, if Waterdown is not within the list it is not within a prescribed part of Ontario.

Therefore, if you received an offence notice (not a summons) and you're not within prescribed part of Ontario COMPLETELY IGNORE THE TICKET.

The court cannot set a trial date unless you foolishly give notice of an intention to appear in court.

Prescribed part of Ontario

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/e ... 0950_e.htm

City of Hamilton

City of Kawartha Lakes

City of Ottawa

City of Toronto

County of Dufferin

County of Essex

County of Haliburton

County of Northumberland

County of Peterborough

District Municipality of Muskoka

Haldimand County

Regional Municipality of Durham

Regional Municipality of Halton

Regional Municipality of Peel

Regional Municipality of Waterloo

Regional Municipality of York

Hi Lawman,

Waterdown is a part of the City of Hamilton due to an amalgamation that took place in January 2001.

The only other thing I received with the ticket (yellow) was the slip to include if/when I made my payment (the size of the envelope), and the envelope to use if/when I mailed in payment.

I don't think I received a summons(?).

I was going to ask for a first attendance this week and plea for dismissal or for at least a 0 points. If it was refused by the Prosecutor I was going to then request disclosure and then get a paralegal to represent me in trial.

I just spoke to a lawyer and to a paralegal. The lawyer said that the ticket cites the wrong section for the road I was driving on, and the paralegal said that it was the right section but was just as confused as I as to the subsection given that it allows for passing AND left hand turns?

I am REALLY confused now.

Marquisse wrote:

I am REALLY confused now.

Welcome to the law........

Welcome to the law........

Hahaha, you aren't kidding!

This isn't my first introduction. I'm a real estate paralegal, so I know how confusing it is.

I'm hoping that someone here knows how ss154(1)(b) is interpreted and applied, as I'm either reading it wrong, or the officer was, and so far the paralegals and lawyer I've contact have said that it's either the wrong section or that the charge doesn't make sense given that the section allows for it.

How can I be charged with using the centre lane improperly with the officer saying I improperly used the centre lane as a passing/overtaking of another vehicle when subsection 154(1)(b) says that it is permissable!?

I just read your first message. Very interesting. HTA s. 154(1)(b) does say you can use the turning lane as a passing lane.

You committed no violation.

Use the French Languge Service Act defence in addition to arguing you violated no s. 154 provision.

The turning lane being used as a passing lane is funny!

Hi Lawman,

Thank you VERY much for your response. So I am NOT reading it wrong, then. Phiew . I even read it upside down to give it another perspective, lol.

Can you explain briefly what the French Language Service Act defense is? If I can stretch my memory back to school, is it when the ticket must be in both official languages to be "on it's face" legitimate according to the POA? I'll have to check the ticket tonight, as I don't remember if the little sections on that small rectangular yellow sheet offered descriptions simultaneously in English and in French.

Honestly, can I argue that with a straight face to the prosecutor? I will do it, but it's very technical (just like 50% of my other argument). Also, I will not have the chance to have a First Attendance; only to request a trial date and maybe see the prosecutor 15 minutes before court starts on the day of my trial. I'll request disclosure once I receive my trial date notice. They only offer First Attendances to those with Careless Driving, speeding over 49km, etc.

Also, is this a strict liability charge?

The French defence is that the street sign is not bilingual, the cop never spoke to you in both languages, and the text the cop added to the ticket is not in both languages.

There is a thread or two on this site relating to the issue. You'd have to look for them. If you click on my name and search all my posts you'll find it quite easily.

The penalty for s. 154 falls under s. 214. In my view this is an absolute liability offence given the penalty states you are guilty. This means you can only attack the cops evidence, and you can still beat the ticket on his evidence, because his evidence will not demonstrate you violated the provision.

If on the other hand the court claims its a strict liability, you can file your due diligence defence. But it's impossible to have a due diligence defence in this case, because you haven't violated any law.

General penalty

214. (1) Every person who contravenes this Act or any regulation is guilty of an offence and on conviction, where a penalty for the contravention is not otherwise provided for herein, is liable to a fine of not less than $60 and not more than $500.

Cops evidence: I gave him a ticket because he was using the middle lane as a passing lane.

Justice: But the turning lane can legally be used as a passing lane under the section you charged him under.

Cop: Really?

Cop: Well, he was going too fast in the passing lane.

Justice: But you never gave him a speeding ticket.

Cop: Oh I know that, he wasnt speeding; he was just going too fast.

Lawman wrote:

Therefore, if you received an offence notice (not a summons) and you're not within prescribed part of Ontario COMPLETELY IGNORE THE TICKET.

Have you successfully used this defence in court (or any of your other theories for that matter)?

Just created that bulletproof defence yesterday.

The comedy of it all is that the POA is 19 years old. Ontario has over 10,000 lawyers, and thousands of paralegals, hundreds of lawmaking politicians, yet no one but me spotted this massive fatal flaw in the POA.

Look for yourself.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statut ... e.htm#BK73

Try and point out how the court can set a trial date for those not in a prescribed part of Ontario when the accused does not serve an intention to appear.

No provision exist, and if you claim otherwise, please post the section.

I think the wrong clause was cited. From what the officer seems to think you did, (c) looks like the correct clause - official signs (or lane markings) were present indicating that the centre lane is only to be used as a turning lane.

I'm not entirely familiar with that area, but I think it's actually a five-lane road - a centre lane with two lanes for each direction. In that case I don't think 154 (1) (b) applies at all.

Yes, I think (c) is the correct one as well considering what the officer said he thought I did. So I will argue that I committed no violation based on the law cited on the Certificate of Offense, but they can give the officer an opportunity to change the charge within six months, can't they? It seems quite unjust that they allow this, but it may be that my trial won't be for 4-6 months anyway. If that happens and the section is changed, what do I argue, the French Language Act defense? Has anyone used that defense and the judge allowed it?

This is a first for me in court, so I'm VERY green and nervous. I don't want to make an arse of myself.

I need opinions, plz!

This is what I'm thinking on this. I go to trial and as a defense tell the justice that I did not commit an offense because the subsection 154(1)(b) cited specifically allows what I did, which was to prepare for a left turn, abort it, and merge again with traffic. When the The officer/prosecutor alleges that I used the middle lane to overtake another vehicle, I will point out that this too is allowed under the subsection.

Is this citation of S154(1)(b) a "fatal flaw"? The description on the ticket only says that I used the centre lane improperly, not what exactly he said I did. It's very ambiguous.

Advice from those experienced would be greatly appreciated! I very much want to do this myself for my own experience, and only plan on speaking to the prosecutor before the trial to try to reduce the ticket to o points. If they offer any less than that, I will go to trial.

Marquisse wrote:

This is what I'm thinking on this. I go to trial and as a defense tell the justice that I did not commit an offense because the subsection 154(1)(b) cited specifically allows what I did, which was to prepare for a left turn, abort it, and merge again with traffic. When the The officer/prosecutor alleges that I used the middle lane to overtake another vehicle, I will point out that this too is allowed under the subsection.

I think this is a valid defence. Since you're a paralegal I'm sure you're comfortable with court proceedings. I also like your strategy of plea-bargaining and if it does not work, then go to trial. See if they can offer you a municipal by-law infraction, because that will keep the ticket away from your driving record and, more importantly, your insurance company!

Thanks RI!

I am not comfortable in court proceedings, though. As a paralegal, most of my work is in drafting and researching in RE law. I've been to court and I know the law through education, but I've yet to argue a case in a Provincial Offenses court. That's why I wanted to hear from others regarding the validity of my argument. Of course the Justice will be the final arbiter, but it's good to bounce ideas off of others.

Marquisse wrote:

... When the The officer/prosecutor alleges that I used the middle lane to overtake another vehicle, I will point out that this too is allowed under the subsection.

As Squishy pointed out, I don't think it is allowed. I have only seen a "shared" passing lane once; on Hwy 11 up near New Liskard. All the other shared centre lanes I have seen (including in my city) are clearly marked with left turn arrows. I don't think those arrows can be ignored.

But I still think you have a good case. The officer clearly believes you used the centre lane to pass a vehicle. He has no way of really knowing your intent. he can only form an opinion. I'm sure lots of people get in the turning lane only to find it impossible to complete the turn for one reason or another. You just have to explain your reason to the JP.

Hi Bookm,

I agree, but where the confusion comes in is in the subsection cited. Can they argue that according to the section I was charged under, I commited no offense, but that the appropriate subsection is actually 154 (1)(c) and then change it? This is why I have no intention of letting the prosecutor know beforehand of this and will only present this argument if it comes to trial.

If for safety reasons I had to abort the left and re-merge (because I knew that to use the centre lane to continue on was not allowed and there was no place for me to make the left turn into), I'm asserting a defense of necessity.

I am making too many assumptions or have procedure wrong?

154 (1) (b) applies only to a three-lane road. You were on a five-lane road, in which case you can argue that this clause neither prohibited nor allowed your actions (with strong emphasis on "did not prohibit").

I'm not sure if they can turn around and issue a new ticket, though.

Ya, I'd do the same as you Marquisse. I would keep my questions (and closing statement) specific to the subsection listed on your ticket. If the crown tried to amend the ticket, I would object as I have appeared on my court date to defend myself against the charging document only. I would argue that amending the ticket would deprive me of the right to a fair trial on this, my scheduled court date, and the cost of missing another day from work if a continuance were granted, is too high.

I did some further digging and found that the French Language defense likely won't work for me because the City of Hamilton is only included in the 25 regions that must comply with the French Language Act as it existed on December 31, 2000.

Waterdown did not amalgamate to become part of the City of Hamilton until January, 2001 and was previously a part of the East Flamborough Twnshp.

That little bit of digging I do believe saved me a red face in court!!!

Just a question - did you request/get the disclosure package yet? It would be funny to defeat officer based on his own notes...

No, I haven't received a date yet, so I haven't been able to request disclosure. Once I look over it, I'll decide then whether or not to defend myself or hire someone to.

Just an update here. Do you know that I haven't received a date yet for court?! I called at the end of August and she said that they are backed up (this is the at the John Sopinka courthouse) and to wait another three weeks. Well, it's now 5 weeks later.....nothing in the mail. WWYD? Call again? I'm going to request disclosure the moment I get notice, but pass this off to a classmate of mine who works at a Traffic Ticket place just around the corner from my work. They've got the experience to do it, but I'd like to be there to see it.

Well, apparently now you can ask for disclosure before even getting the court date, as some members have indicated. I don't get why though...

I'd try calling them again.

racer wrote:

Well, apparently now you can ask for disclosure before even getting the court date, as some members have indicated.

Once the PON is filed by the officer, the Crown Prosecutor can look up the info and track down the officer (get the notes, etc). So it's in the system, even though the court date hasn't been set yet.

.....sorry edited wrong message!!!!

Marquisse wrote:

Well, I called the John Sopinka courthouse again yesterday and, finally, have a court date for mid-January. Do any of you know if I can get the forms for requesting disclosure online, or do I have to stop into the courthouse again to obtain one (the previous copy handed to me in July is severely dog-eared from being in my purse for so long)?

Try:http://www.ticketcombat.com

I went to court on Thursday and ended up asking for an adjournment because the crown gave me disclosure (about 3 lines of the officer's notes ) 30 seconds prior to calling my name.

The officer's note mentioned that he saw me drive in the centre lane for about 200-300 meters. IMPOSSIBLE. Look, I'm no police basher like we often get here, but this guy is F.O.S. There is no way this fibber saw me driving that distance (not that it matters, section 154.(1)(b) does not prohibit it anyhow) because there is a HILL that he crested just as I was entering the lane to my right! When I saw this I thought "how in the world do I discredit a police officer who is not being truthful in his notes in a palatable way in court!?"!

So, I asked for an adjournment to consult a paralegal I know. I think I'm going to ask him to represent me because now I am piqued.

I conducted myself with professionalism when addressing the court and, quite frankly, I think surprised and P.O'ed the officer because when I turned around to leave, he gave me his best stink eye. I smiled, bowed to the justice, and left.

Anyway, there's my dramatic update. The crown tried to say the late disclosure was due to my error and late request, but I told the justice that the reason for the late request for disclosure was due to the PO Office's failure to provide Notice for Trial.