Hello, I am hoping to get advice on how to proceed with my defence regarding a ticket I received for improper use of a high occupancy vehicle lane on an interprovincial bridge between Hull, QC and Ottawa, ON. The ticket was given in Ottawa by the Ottawa Police. What happened: I was staying at my girlfriend's in Hull, QC because it was close to my new job in Ottawa. This area was brand new to me. Needless to say, I was driving South down Maisonneuve Boulevard in Hull that morning to get to work and cross the bridge to Ottawa. After the intersection between Maisonneuve Boulevard and Laurier Street, there is a bridge that crosses into Ottawa and onto Wellington Street. This is an interprovincial bridge. I was in the furthest left lane in Hull on Maisonneuve Boulevard because it seemed to be moving quicker than the right lane but upon crossing the intersection, I noticed an HOV sign that only allows 3 passengers or more, taxis, buses, etc. So I put my blinker on to get into the right lane but no vehicles would let me in, to which point I was being honked at from buses and vehicles behind me. I decided to keep going with my right blinker on by trying to find a spot to squeeze into on the right lane until a police officer who was purposely waiting on the median got out of his vehicle and asked me to stop right then and there so he could give me a ticket. HOV Lanes & Signage After getting the infuriating ticket, I went back after work and noticed that the lane I was driving in on Maisonneuve Boulevard (in Hull, QC) was not a HOV lane. In fact, the HOV lane on Maisonneuve Boulevard is on the furthest right lane. However, after crossing the intersection onto the bridge, the HOV lane switches to the furthest left lane with only an HOV warning the moment you get on the bridge. My defence According to the Ontario website, entering an HOV lane in Ontario must have approximately a 400m notice. Link: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/ontari ... anes.shtml Second, I assume that an Ottawa by-law comes into play as well. I found the document, and can't find much about HOV lanes in Ottawa other than page 26 that says "drive or permit to be driven any vehicle to be driven, other than a high-occupancy vehicle carrying the minimum number of persons shown on the authorized signs." I also found on page 12, regarding signage, saying: "required to regulate, direct, warn or guide pedestrian and vehicular traffic and parking for the safety and convenience of the public." Link: http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/docume ... law_en.pdf What I am hoping to argue is that there was not enough signage or proper warning to guide me that the HOV lane immediately cuts from the furthest to the right to the furthest to the left upon crossing the bridge. I requested a disclosure two weeks before my court date (May 2), so I hope that I can request my trial to be adjourned until I receive a disclosure. Any advice on how to proceed with this would also be appreciated! Thank you.
Hello,
I am hoping to get advice on how to proceed with my defence regarding a ticket I received for improper use of a high occupancy vehicle lane on an interprovincial bridge between Hull, QC and Ottawa, ON. The ticket was given in Ottawa by the Ottawa Police.
What happened:
I was staying at my girlfriend's in Hull, QC because it was close to my new job in Ottawa. This area was brand new to me.
Needless to say, I was driving South down Maisonneuve Boulevard in Hull that morning to get to work and cross the bridge to Ottawa. After the intersection between Maisonneuve Boulevard and Laurier Street, there is a bridge that crosses into Ottawa and onto Wellington Street. This is an interprovincial bridge. I was in the furthest left lane in Hull on Maisonneuve Boulevard because it seemed to be moving quicker than the right lane but upon crossing the intersection, I noticed an HOV sign that only allows 3 passengers or more, taxis, buses, etc. So I put my blinker on to get into the right lane but no vehicles would let me in, to which point I was being honked at from buses and vehicles behind me. I decided to keep going with my right blinker on by trying to find a spot to squeeze into on the right lane until a police officer who was purposely waiting on the median got out of his vehicle and asked me to stop right then and there so he could give me a ticket.
HOV Lanes & Signage
After getting the infuriating ticket, I went back after work and noticed that the lane I was driving in on Maisonneuve Boulevard (in Hull, QC) was not a HOV lane.
In fact, the HOV lane on Maisonneuve Boulevard is on the furthest right lane. However, after crossing the intersection onto the bridge, the HOV lane switches to the furthest left lane with only an HOV warning the moment you get on the bridge.
Second, I assume that an Ottawa by-law comes into play as well. I found the document, and can't find much about HOV lanes in Ottawa other than page 26 that says "drive or permit to be driven any vehicle to be driven, other than a high-occupancy vehicle carrying the minimum number of persons shown on the authorized signs." I also found on page 12, regarding signage, saying: "required to regulate, direct, warn or guide pedestrian and vehicular traffic and parking for the safety and convenience of the public." Link: http://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/docume ... law_en.pdf
What I am hoping to argue is that there was not enough signage or proper warning to guide me that the HOV lane immediately cuts from the furthest to the right to the furthest to the left upon crossing the bridge. I requested a disclosure two weeks before my court date (May 2), so I hope that I can request my trial to be adjourned until I receive a disclosure.
Any advice on how to proceed with this would also be appreciated!
Thank you.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post. Register to view.
Were you charged under section 154.1 of the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) or a municipal by-law or the National Capital Commission Traffic and Property Regulations (NCCTPR)?
Were you charged under section 154.1 of the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) or a municipal by-law or the National Capital Commission Traffic and Property Regulations (NCCTPR)?
That is the same situation as me. From what I understand on that thread, I should meet with the prosecutor on my court date and ask them to drop the charge because it was the incorrect one. To clarify my situation, it was indeed the Ottawa Police and it was 154.1 (3) of the Highway Traffic Act. Whereas it should have been S.4(1) or an Ottawa by-law ticket (from what I am reading on the other thread). In your opinion, what should I bring to the prosecutor to prove to them that I was given the wrong charge and therefore should be getting it dropped altogether? Does my signage defence even hold up at all or is my best bet to only bring up the wrong charge and not the signage issue too.
That is the same situation as me. From what I understand on that thread, I should meet with the prosecutor on my court date and ask them to drop the charge because it was the incorrect one. To clarify my situation, it was indeed the Ottawa Police and it was 154.1 (3) of the Highway Traffic Act. Whereas it should have been S.4(1) or an Ottawa by-law ticket (from what I am reading on the other thread).
In your opinion, what should I bring to the prosecutor to prove to them that I was given the wrong charge and therefore should be getting it dropped altogether? Does my signage defence even hold up at all or is my best bet to only bring up the wrong charge and not the signage issue too.
You should get the officer to testify as to what he saw. Then ask him or her to describe the signage and road markings. Bring four copies of Regulation 620/05 (the HOV Regulation made under the HTA): one for the officer, one for the JP, one for the prosecutor and one for you to use. Ask the officer if you were on any of the highways specified in the Regulation (obviously you weren't). Ask the officer if the road markings matched what is specified in the Regulation (obviously they don't). You can then easily prove you were charged under the wrong offence. The prosecutor may then try to change the charge to s. 4(1) of the NCCTPR or the appropriate City of Ottawa by-law, but, to the best of my knowledge, you can object to that as that charge is not included in your original charge.
You should get the officer to testify as to what he saw. Then ask him or her to describe the signage and road markings. Bring four copies of Regulation 620/05 (the HOV Regulation made under the HTA): one for the officer, one for the JP, one for the prosecutor and one for you to use. Ask the officer if you were on any of the highways specified in the Regulation (obviously you weren't). Ask the officer if the road markings matched what is specified in the Regulation (obviously they don't). You can then easily prove you were charged under the wrong offence. The prosecutor may then try to change the charge to s. 4(1) of the NCCTPR or the appropriate City of Ottawa by-law, but, to the best of my knowledge, you can object to that as that charge is not included in your original charge.
You should get the officer to testify as to what he saw. Then ask him or her to describe the signage and road markings. Bring four copies of Regulation 620/05 (the HOV Regulation made under the HTA): one for the officer, one for the JP, one for the prosecutor and one for you to use. Ask the officer if you were on any of the highways specified in the Regulation (obviously you weren't). Ask the officer if the road markings matched what is specified in the Regulation (obviously they don't). You can then easily prove you were charged under the wrong offence. The prosecutor may then try to change the charge to s. 4(1) of the NCCTPR or the appropriate City of Ottawa by-law, but, to the best of my knowledge, you can object to that as that charge is not included in your original charge.
I received my disclosure. They are typed out notes of the officer. They say: "Enforcement of the Ottawa bound HOV lane. Signs posted clearly for bus/taxi person or more vehicles. Police truck parked NB on centre median. officer on foot. Vehicle observed in bus lane is a grey Hyundai sedan solo male drive4r in bus lane ID w ONT LD"
Zatota wrote:
You should get the officer to testify as to what he saw. Then ask him or her to describe the signage and road markings. Bring four copies of Regulation 620/05 (the HOV Regulation made under the HTA): one for the officer, one for the JP, one for the prosecutor and one for you to use. Ask the officer if you were on any of the highways specified in the Regulation (obviously you weren't). Ask the officer if the road markings matched what is specified in the Regulation (obviously they don't). You can then easily prove you were charged under the wrong offence. The prosecutor may then try to change the charge to s. 4(1) of the NCCTPR or the appropriate City of Ottawa by-law, but, to the best of my knowledge, you can object to that as that charge is not included in your original charge.
I received my disclosure. They are typed out notes of the officer. They say:
"Enforcement of the Ottawa bound HOV lane. Signs posted clearly for bus/taxi person or more vehicles. Police truck parked NB on centre median. officer on foot. Vehicle observed in bus lane is a grey Hyundai sedan solo male drive4r in bus lane ID w ONT LD"
I still think what I suggested will work. Signs may have been posted, but I'm guessing from what you've said that (a) there were no "HOV lane ahead" type signs on the Quebec side and (b) the signage did not conform to the Regulation (I believe someone who's in a similar situation said the lane is 3+). The officer clearly charged you under the wrong Act.
I still think what I suggested will work. Signs may have been posted, but I'm guessing from what you've said that (a) there were no "HOV lane ahead" type signs on the Quebec side and (b) the signage did not conform to the Regulation (I believe someone who's in a similar situation said the lane is 3+). The officer clearly charged you under the wrong Act.
Ok, thank you. So there is a sign that advises you HOV +3 taxi/bus ahead but it is as soon as you cross the intersection onto the bridge. If you see in my image it says HOV sign furthest left. That arrow is where all of a sudden it tells you it is now an HOV lane ahead. But the HOV lane was actually on the furthest right before the intersection/crossing on the bridge. Do you think that even though there was a "warning sign" right away that it will constitute a fair warning that it is HOV? It seems that the Ontario HOV says it should be 400m notice (again being the wrong charge he gave me anyway). From what I read about the previous person having this issue, it seems that people are saying if six months doesn't pass by time you go to court that the prosecutor can give me a new charge that would be the proper one? Or should they just end up dropping it based on my arguments you mentioned earlier. Thanks again.
Zatota wrote:
I still think what I suggested will work. Signs may have been posted, but I'm guessing from what you've said that (a) there were no "HOV lane ahead" type signs on the Quebec side and (b) the signage did not conform to the Regulation (I believe someone who's in a similar situation said the lane is 3+). The officer clearly charged you under the wrong Act.
Ok, thank you. So there is a sign that advises you HOV +3 taxi/bus ahead but it is as soon as you cross the intersection onto the bridge. If you see in my image it says HOV sign furthest left. That arrow is where all of a sudden it tells you it is now an HOV lane ahead. But the HOV lane was actually on the furthest right before the intersection/crossing on the bridge. Do you think that even though there was a "warning sign" right away that it will constitute a fair warning that it is HOV? It seems that the Ontario HOV says it should be 400m notice (again being the wrong charge he gave me anyway).
From what I read about the previous person having this issue, it seems that people are saying if six months doesn't pass by time you go to court that the prosecutor can give me a new charge that would be the proper one? Or should they just end up dropping it based on my arguments you mentioned earlier. Thanks again.
The 3+ HOV lane that exists on the bridge is municipal and is covered by an Ottawa by-law. The provisions of the HTA do not apply. Had you been charged under the NCCTPR, you'd have been guilty. The officer charged you with the wrong offence. If you're in court within six months of the alleged offence date, the officer (not the prosecutor) could theoretically charge you with the "correct" offence. Whether he would, however, would be entirely up to him.
The 3+ HOV lane that exists on the bridge is municipal and is covered by an Ottawa by-law. The provisions of the HTA do not apply. Had you been charged under the NCCTPR, you'd have been guilty. The officer charged you with the wrong offence.
If you're in court within six months of the alleged offence date, the officer (not the prosecutor) could theoretically charge you with the "correct" offence. Whether he would, however, would be entirely up to him.
My court date was today. After trial, the prosecutor didn't believe it was my first time on this bridge and therefore should have been more aware. The judge later proceeded to give my sentence as guilty. The prosecutor claims that there is a subsection within the HTA that applies to this offence. I do not recall what it was. Notably, the judge mentioned that wrong offence or not that I have confirmed I was on that lane and that is enough to make me guilty. I have taken papers to appeal. Not sure if I should. If anyone can please advise. Thank you.
Zatota wrote:
The 3+ HOV lane that exists on the bridge is municipal and is covered by an Ottawa by-law. The provisions of the HTA do not apply. Had you been charged under the NCCTPR, you'd have been guilty. The officer charged you with the wrong offence.
If you're in court within six months of the alleged offence date, the officer (not the prosecutor) could theoretically charge you with the "correct" offence. Whether he would, however, would be entirely up to him.
My court date was today. After trial, the prosecutor didn't believe it was my first time on this bridge and therefore should have been more aware. The judge later proceeded to give my sentence as guilty. The prosecutor claims that there is a subsection within the HTA that applies to this offence. I do not recall what it was. Notably, the judge mentioned that wrong offence or not that I have confirmed I was on that lane and that is enough to make me guilty.
I have taken papers to appeal. Not sure if I should. If anyone can please advise. Thank you.
Did they change the charge then to a different section of the HTA or to a bylaw offence or to the NCCTPR? If you want to appeal, you need to pay for 3 copies of the transcript in advance. So now you have to decide if your time and money is worth appealing it. Personally I encourage the appeal on principle alone, but that of course does not mean you will win! And since we were not there, we do not really know what was said or what went down.
Did they change the charge then to a different section of the HTA or to a bylaw offence or to the NCCTPR?
If you want to appeal, you need to pay for 3 copies of the transcript in advance. So now you have to decide if your time and money is worth appealing it. Personally I encourage the appeal on principle alone, but that of course does not mean you will win! And since we were not there, we do not really know what was said or what went down.
There's no way the JP could have found you guilty of the offence with which you were charged. It refers to a situation that's completely different from the one covered by Section 154.1. Even if you say you were driving in the lane, you did not violate s. 154.1 and cannot be found guilty of violating it. Unless the prosecutor amended the charge, you could not have been found guilty. In this case, the JP would have made an error in law and you should be able to win on appeal (my non-professional opinion, of course). If the prosecutor did amend the charge, the question becomes whether the new charge is included in the original. There have been discussions here as to what "included" means, including some excellent examples. I'm hardly an expert on this subject, so, perhaps, someone else can chime in.
There's no way the JP could have found you guilty of the offence with which you were charged. It refers to a situation that's completely different from the one covered by Section 154.1. Even if you say you were driving in the lane, you did not violate s. 154.1 and cannot be found guilty of violating it. Unless the prosecutor amended the charge, you could not have been found guilty. In this case, the JP would have made an error in law and you should be able to win on appeal (my non-professional opinion, of course).
If the prosecutor did amend the charge, the question becomes whether the new charge is included in the original. There have been discussions here as to what "included" means, including some excellent examples. I'm hardly an expert on this subject, so, perhaps, someone else can chime in.
I have a problem and not sure what the hell to do about it. Few days ago I was stopped on a street going westbound against blinding afternoon sun following the flow of traffic. I drive a taxi for living in Toronto and have ACZ driver's license. I have a perfect record both for professional as well regular demerit points. I haven't been pulled over as a matter of fact in some 15 years for…
I have recently gone to court for a speeding ticket issued by an OPP officer. As it stood, the officer forgot to sign the ticket. So at my trial, before I made a plea, I pointed this out to the justice of the peace and asked that the ticket be quashed. I was asked to produce my copy of the ticket, which I gave and the JOP then agreed with me and dismissed the case. Before he did so, the…
I got pulled over (along with about 10 other cars) for going through a road closed sign. I had just pulled out of a parking lot pretty much right beside the road closed sign, and with about 4 cars behind me there wasn't much I could do but go through, so I think I have a good chance of fighting it. However, on my ticket under the Signature of issuing Provincial Offences Officer, it's left…
So here's my situation, any advice would be appreciated.
On June 26, 2013 I received a ticket for 25 over in a 60 zone
In early October I received my notice of trial (Feb 25, 2014)
In early January I sent in my request for disclosure
In late January I received a letter to pick up my disclosure, however when I picked up my disclosure it wasn't typed (I had requested it to be) and I needed…
Is there a legal requirement to report an accident to the insurer?
Scenario
- 2 vehicle accident
- each vehicle has less than $1000 damage
- each vehicle has damage roughly equal to insurance deductible
- a police Accident Report was completed
In this scenario the drivers decided to repair their own damages. But are they legally bound to report the accident and damages to the insurer? ...and out of…
I will be representing my wife at her speeding trial next week. Mostly everything is pretty much run of the mill but since she wasn't speeding we will be having her take the stand. Since this opens up the opportunity for the prosecutor to cross examine, I am just wondering if anyone here knows what kind of questions we should expect from the prosecutor in order to best prepare.
i got pulled over by a cop this morning in my kids's school zone for failure to stop at a stop sign. i am thinking of fighting this ticket, but i noticed that on the ticket itself it only says "disobey stop sign - fail to stop" and there is no mention of the demerit points. a co-worker mentioned to me that a ticket should state how many demerit points i am being docked. i know the Highway Traffic…
Alright, so this happened back awhile ago on June and I haven't appeared in Court. However, I would like some inputs and advice before I get into this battle.
Back in June I got a Speeding Ticket claiming I was going 100km/h on Blackcreek going south towards Lawrence. The Speed Limit there is 70km/h.
At this point of time, it was roughly traffic hour around 4-5PM. Coming off of the Highway, and…
Ive already done searches, read the act as best i can but still haven't read a complete answer. Where in the HTA does it state that the front license plate must be attached to the front bumper? I have it on the passenger sun visor (if ppl remember the old temp permits that taped to the pass side of windshield) i figured that this spot would be the same. However now they have got rid of…
My son was returning from school and was just entering the driveway when another vehicle hit the rear end. Police writes a ticket "fail to yield from private drive" 139(i). He is going to fight this ticket and made an application for disclosure. The trial is next week and he still hasn't received the disclosure.
He checked with the court last month and they said that they will call when disclosure…
i was travelling on the 401 (posted speed 100km/h) in the far left lane, when i caught up to a vehicle going ~110km/h. I patiently waited for the vehicle to move over a lane, but they did not. The vehicle behind me moved to the center lane to pass, but because he was a safe distance behind me, i moved into the middle lane ahead of him to pass the slower moving car. When I accelerated, i…
So I was returning from my honeymoon in Montreal, and was cruising down the 401 just inside the Ontario/Quebec border. I was passing one of the Onroute stations and saw an OPP cruiser. I checked my speed and I was doing 120. A few kilometers up the road the cruiser pulled me over and told me I was clocked doing 132 by the aircraft. I was a little surprised to see the ticket was for the full…
I made a right turn during prohibited hours (7am-6pm) in Toronto. I was ticketed by a COP who was specially watching for that trap.
After I've received the ticket HTA144(9), I discovered one of the seven digits of my license plate was incorrectly written on my ticket. I was thinking about to make a First Attendance at the court office to see the prosecutor for a reduced charge...any advice or…
Have been busy and haven't had much time to follow up on this...
Went to court having not received disclosure (and was not organized enough to apply for a stay), so the trial was adjourned. They photocopied the officer's ticket and notes and provided a log sheet from the plane. I've sent another request for the rest of the disclosure items.
So here's my question -- can an officer amend the ticket…
I am not sure if my case is really a case of " mis-use parking permit" and need some advises on whether i should fight the ticket. Here is what happened:
During the labor day long weekend, I took my parents to diner at a local shopping mall. (my father's hip was broken in 2016 and he's been on wheelchair since, the permit is in his name and I been using the permit to help him for doctor's…
I have a court date coming up where I need to subpoena one of the officers that was present when I got my ticket. The issuing officer didn't include the fact that the second one was present at the time in his report (disclosure) but did give me the second officers name and badge number after the judge told him to do it.
What I'm looking for help with is the process of me getting to…
I got pulled over on a 4 lane section fo Highway 7... Thank god I didn't get a stay at home ticket as well or my car impounded.
Officer clocked me at 156 km/h he decided not to impound my car and give me a 149 km/h since it was my first offence and he said I was polite and respectful. I would give this officer a 5/5 review if I could, very polite and respectful.
Long story short, I was driving from Toronto to Ottawa and around Napanee with my friend in two separated cars, the officer was parked on uturn. He followed us turn his light on and got between us and pulled us over, he told me that i was running at 152 km/h without showing me his LISAR. they suspended my and my friends license and impounded the two cars for 7 days. This was a Friday in January…
I'm unsure on what to do here. I was under the impression that I could request a stay on the day of trial because disclosure was not given to me in an adequate time. I requested disclosure 2x by fax, 5 months ago.
I read on ticketcombat that I had to file a motion 15 days prior to the trial to request a stay of proceedings.
Does anyone else get blinded by fog lights on rural roads? I don't seem to have a problem with them on lighted streets, but the badly aimed fog lights or ones with a poor cutoff really get to me when driving the Escort. I just came back from a 20-minute drive, and every single pickup truck had fog lights on, and forced me to focus on the bottom right of the road. My windshield is clean and…
Improper Use of HOV Lane on Interprovincial Bridge
