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).
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Last edited by Squishy on Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.
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!!! :oops:
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
I'd try calling them again. 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.
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.
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)?
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 :roll: ) 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.
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.
i lost my license in an accident i had to due my exceeding amount of demerit points. i went to jail and made bail i was put on a curfew of 9am to 9pm stupidly enough i did not follow and i got pulled over for driving with a different cars license plates, no insurance, and violating my curfew... i…
I was charged for disobey sign (no left turn) in a winter noon time around Bay/Edward (the prosecutor/judge said it to be a Absolute liability offences but disobey sign is actually a strict liability offence, right? And I found this: For example, if you made an illegal left-turn where there were…
so got fined with 69km in a 50km, at bottom of hill...didn't even have foot on the gas. first ticket ever in over 10 years of driving. fine was 62$ and 3 points.
cop says take to court and get demerit points reduced. didn't even let me speak and walks away.
On my way to work today I got a 110 dollar ticket + 2 demerit points.
I was driving north on Bathurst and turned left onto a side street into a residential area before hitting the lights at Eglinton and Bathurst. I normally do this to avoid the big line up to turn left onto Eglinton.
On the 400 extension EB towards Barrie cops like to hide out under an over pass that is Ski Trails Rd. They tag people as the come over the crest of the hill and that is 900m from where this officer was standing.
I'm confused because I knew this, saw the cop, and checked my…
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…
Today i got caught doing 115 in a 90 at Mayfield and 410 and what I have been reading is that this offence is 3 points. Seeing this is my first offence I'm unsure if the ticket is supposed to I lost 3 points or is that just automatic. Also should I go to fight it to drop the points and just pay the…
I was (recently) involved in a traffic accident where, due to icy road conditions, I slid into oncoming traffic while making a right turn, while they were coming towards me and stopping at a stop sign. This was a residential area and there's no way I was exceeding anything over 20KM/h on…
) 30 seconds prior to calling my name.