Here's the situation: There's a set of traffic lights just before the bridge and I was in the left-most lane just before getting onto the bridge. At that point, the lane is open to all traffic but once on the bridge it becomes a reserved lane. The traffic was backed up in the middle lane the entire length of the bridge. At the lights the cars in the middle lane could not even get onto the bridge on a green light. So I got onto the bridge put my turn signal on and started looking for an opening but the cars were not even moving and I kept on going. I also had a bus behind me. The only option was to stop in the left-most lane and wait, blocking the entire lane. I kept on going and went all the way to the end of the bridge and stopped at the red light just before getting off the bridge. My turn signal was on the entire time. The police car was parked on the median, facing the oncoming traffic, just before the end of the bridge. The cop got out and asked for my licence. He said I was in a reserved lane. I said I was aware and that I had tried to merge unsuccessfully. He went back into his car and came back 2 minutes later with the ticket. Ticket says: Improper use of high occupancy lane, Highway Traffic Act 154.1(3), $110 all the other information seems to be correct except my apartment number in the address is missing. Do I have any chance of fighting this?
Here's the situation:
There's a set of traffic lights just before the bridge and I was in the left-most lane just before getting onto the bridge. At that point, the lane is open to all traffic but once on the bridge it becomes a reserved lane. The traffic was backed up in the middle lane the entire length of the bridge. At the lights the cars in the middle lane could not even get onto the bridge on a green light. So I got onto the bridge put my turn signal on and started looking for an opening but the cars were not even moving and I kept on going. I also had a bus behind me. The only option was to stop in the left-most lane and wait, blocking the entire lane. I kept on going and went all the way to the end of the bridge and stopped at the red light just before getting off the bridge. My turn signal was on the entire time. The police car was parked on the median, facing the oncoming traffic, just before the end of the bridge. The cop got out and asked for my licence. He said I was in a reserved lane. I said I was aware and that I had tried to merge unsuccessfully. He went back into his car and came back 2 minutes later with the ticket.
Ticket says: Improper use of high occupancy lane, Highway Traffic Act 154.1(3), $110
all the other information seems to be correct except my apartment number in the address is missing.
Just to add to this, I live in Quebec but got the ticket in Ontario. This offence carries 3 demerit points in Ontario. How does that translate onto my Quebec driver's license?
Just to add to this, I live in Quebec but got the ticket in Ontario. This offence carries 3 demerit points in Ontario. How does that translate onto my Quebec driver's license?
Was it a BUS lane or was it a HOV lane? You will have to check how a conviction from Ontario will affect you in Quebec: http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/ShowDo ... 20r.%2022/
Was it a BUS lane or was it a HOV lane?
You will have to check how a conviction from Ontario will affect you in Quebec:
It was a HOV lane. The sign says bus, taxi or vehicles with 3 or more occupants. I read that document but there is no mention of Highway Traffic Act 154.1 in the agreement. This is a list of traffic offences carrying demerit points in Quebec and there's nothing on HOV. https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/drivers-lice ... it-points/
It was a HOV lane. The sign says bus, taxi or vehicles with 3 or more occupants.
I read that document but there is no mention of Highway Traffic Act 154.1 in the agreement.
This is a list of traffic offences carrying demerit points in Quebec and there's nothing on HOV.
First, I would like to ask where exactly this took place (i.e. name of the road/highway). In order for the charge to be valid, you need to have been on a King's Highway designated for HOV lanes. Check this: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/050620#BK10 and see if the road you were traveling on is listed there. (HOV lanes are only designated on certain sections of Highway 404, Highway 403, Queen Elizabeth Way, Highway 417) If you weren't traveling on one of those roads, you weren't traveling in an HOV lane as per section 154.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, and you were not charged with the proper offence.
First, I would like to ask where exactly this took place (i.e. name of the road/highway).
In order for the charge to be valid, you need to have been on a King's Highway designated for HOV lanes.
(HOV lanes are only designated on certain sections of Highway 404, Highway 403, Queen Elizabeth Way, Highway 417)
If you weren't traveling on one of those roads, you weren't traveling in an HOV lane as per section 154.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, and you were not charged with the proper offence.
It took place on the Portage bridge in Ottawa. It's an inter-provincial bridge between Quebec and Ontario and I got pulled over in the southbound lane where the bridge ends and intersects with Wellington Street. Looking at the google map I just noticed that the address on the ticket is incorrect as well. It says "intersection of Wellington St. and Sir John A. MacDonald Parkway". Wellington does not intersect Sir John A. MacDonald Parkway, it becomes it and not even at the point where it intersects the bridge but one block further west of the bridge. Here's a google map link o the exact location: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4202011,-75.7106253,16z I checked that link and this bridge is not mentioned in it. Also, the HOV sign on the page does not look exactly like the one on this bridge. Below is a google street view of the sign. https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4208427 ... 56!6m1!1e1
Whenaxis wrote:
First, I would like to ask where exactly this took place (i.e. name of the road/highway).
In order for the charge to be valid, you need to have been on a King's Highway designated for HOV lanes.
(HOV lanes are only designated on certain sections of Highway 404, Highway 403, Queen Elizabeth Way, Highway 417)
If you weren't traveling on one of those roads, you weren't traveling in an HOV lane as per section 154.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, and you were not charged with the proper offence.
It took place on the Portage bridge in Ottawa. It's an inter-provincial bridge between Quebec and Ontario and I got pulled over in the southbound lane where the bridge ends and intersects with Wellington Street. Looking at the google map I just noticed that the address on the ticket is incorrect as well. It says "intersection of Wellington St. and Sir John A. MacDonald Parkway". Wellington does not intersect Sir John A. MacDonald Parkway, it becomes it and not even at the point where it intersects the bridge but one block further west of the bridge.
I checked that link and this bridge is not mentioned in it. Also, the HOV sign on the page does not look exactly like the one on this bridge. Below is a google street view of the sign.
You need to read REG 620/05 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/050620 HTA S154.1 ONLY applies to small sections of Hwy 403, 404, 417 and QEW with regulatory HOV-lanes. During the Pan-Am Games they made temporary amendments to the law in order to enforce HOV-lanes. I do not understand why LEOs in ON write HTA tickets for HOV lane offences in inner-city roads; they have to write by-law tickets, in the Greater Toronto Area it's $65 set fine + $15 victim surcharge + $5 court fee = $85 total fine This by-law ticket does not affect your insurance or demerit points; it's basically a parking ticket. You should be able to get this ticket dropped with very little explanation at your early-resolution meeting; there is "no reasonable prospect for a conviction" if it goes to trial.
HTA S154.1 ONLY applies to small sections of Hwy 403, 404, 417 and QEW with regulatory HOV-lanes. During the Pan-Am Games they made temporary amendments to the law in order to enforce HOV-lanes.
I do not understand why LEOs in ON write HTA tickets for HOV lane offences in inner-city roads; they have to write by-law tickets, in the Greater Toronto Area it's $65 set fine + $15 victim surcharge + $5 court fee = $85 total fine
This by-law ticket does not affect your insurance or demerit points; it's basically a parking ticket.
You should be able to get this ticket dropped with very little explanation at your early-resolution meeting; there is "no reasonable prospect for a conviction" if it goes to trial.
(HOV lanes are only designated on certain sections of Highway 404, Highway 403, Queen Elizabeth Way, Highway 417)
If you weren't traveling on one of those roads, you weren't traveling in an HOV lane as per section 154.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, and you were not charged with the proper offence.
I have read in another thread that I should request a trial with the officer present, wait 6 months and then call the prosecutor and ask them to drop the case because of the incorrect charge. if I go to early resolution, can they just re-issue the ticket citing a by-law instead of HOV violation?
HTA S154.1 ONLY applies to small sections of Hwy 403, 404, 417 and QEW with regulatory HOV-lanes. During the Pan-Am Games they made temporary amendments to the law in order to enforce HOV-lanes.
I do not understand why LEOs in ON write HTA tickets for HOV lane offences in inner-city roads; they have to write by-law tickets, in the Greater Toronto Area it's $65 set fine + $15 victim surcharge + $5 court fee = $85 total fine
This by-law ticket does not affect your insurance or demerit points; it's basically a parking ticket.
You should be able to get this ticket dropped with very little explanation at your early-resolution meeting; there is "no reasonable prospect for a conviction" if it goes to trial.
I have read in another thread that I should request a trial with the officer present, wait 6 months and then call the prosecutor and ask them to drop the case because of the incorrect charge. if I go to early resolution, can they just re-issue the ticket citing a by-law instead of HOV violation?
Yes they could withdraw and re-issue. Would they bother? Most likely not, but still a chance. Personally I would do what you said and wait until trial date to show up and discuss with prosecutor. Bring a copy of the regulation and a copy of section 154
Yes they could withdraw and re-issue. Would they bother? Most likely not, but still a chance.
Personally I would do what you said and wait until trial date to show up and discuss with prosecutor. Bring a copy of the regulation and a copy of section 154
I agree. You've been charged with the wrong offence; you should have been charged under an Ottawa by-law. 3+ HOV lanes are municipal, not provincial, and carry different restrictions and fines.
I agree. You've been charged with the wrong offence; you should have been charged under an Ottawa by-law. 3+ HOV lanes are municipal, not provincial, and carry different restrictions and fines.
I just want to clarify something: you were charged by Ottawa Police or RCMP? Thing is Portage Bridge is an NCC bridge that falls under the NCCTPR, not the HTA. OPS usually don't bother but RCMP will charge under the NCCTPR. As such you should have been charged under S.4(1) pursuant to the HTA S.154.1. Although all the other posts are correct in that this is not the appropriate section, it can be amended to reflect the proper section because S.4(1) allows a charge under any section of the HTA. It's kind of complicated but to keep it simple, chances are it will be amended before the JP, and they usually agree to that as it is non-prejudicial (I'm from Ottawa so I've seen it before). I know different jurisdictions have different trends, but in Ottawa this is a common thing. More likely it would be amended to S. 182(2) or NCCTPR S.6. Besides, I have heard the argument before that because the Portage bridge is a Federal bridge, it is also considered King's Highway, but I'm not sure that holds much water... Finally, there are no points associated to this offence in Quebec.
I just want to clarify something: you were charged by Ottawa Police or RCMP?
Thing is Portage Bridge is an NCC bridge that falls under the NCCTPR, not the HTA. OPS usually don't bother but RCMP will charge under the NCCTPR.
As such you should have been charged under S.4(1) pursuant to the HTA S.154.1. Although all the other posts are correct in that this is not the appropriate section, it can be amended to reflect the proper section because S.4(1) allows a charge under any section of the HTA.
It's kind of complicated but to keep it simple, chances are it will be amended before the JP, and they usually agree to that as it is non-prejudicial (I'm from Ottawa so I've seen it before). I know different jurisdictions have different trends, but in Ottawa this is a common thing. More likely it would be amended to S. 182(2) or NCCTPR S.6.
Besides, I have heard the argument before that because the Portage bridge is a Federal bridge, it is also considered King's Highway, but I'm not sure that holds much water...
Finally, there are no points associated to this offence in Quebec.
I am not a lawyer or para-legal: I do not offer legal advice nor should my comments be interpreted as such. I believe in respecting the law; don't be offended if I don't agree with you.
Can you provide a linkt to S.4(1) and S. 182(2) I'm looking here but I can't find much in this document: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/ ... -1044.html I'm pretty sure it was indeed an RCMP officer as I've seen them on that bridge before. Are you saying that the chances of getting it quashed over the incorrect charge are slim? Can they still amend it even after 6 months? I've already mailed the ticket requesting a court date and the officer to be present.
devilsadvocate wrote:
I just want to clarify something: you were charged by Ottawa Police or RCMP?
Thing is Portage Bridge is an NCC bridge that falls under the NCCTPR, not the HTA. OPS usually don't bother but RCMP will charge under the NCCTPR.
As such you should have been charged under S.4(1) pursuant to the HTA S.154.1. Although all the other posts are correct in that this is not the appropriate section, it can be amended to reflect the proper section because S.4(1) allows a charge under any section of the HTA.
It's kind of complicated but to keep it simple, chances are it will be amended before the JP, and they usually agree to that as it is non-prejudicial (I'm from Ottawa so I've seen it before). I know different jurisdictions have different trends, but in Ottawa this is a common thing. More likely it would be amended to S. 182(2) or NCCTPR S.6.
Besides, I have heard the argument before that because the Portage bridge is a Federal bridge, it is also considered King's Highway, but I'm not sure that holds much water...
Finally, there are no points associated to this offence in Quebec.
Can you provide a linkt to S.4(1) and S. 182(2)
I'm looking here but I can't find much in this document:
I'm pretty sure it was indeed an RCMP officer as I've seen them on that bridge before. Are you saying that the chances of getting it quashed over the incorrect charge are slim? Can they still amend it even after 6 months? I've already mailed the ticket requesting a court date and the officer to be present.
The charge probably should have been under s.4(1) of the NCCTPR. That subsection requires a driver to drive "in compliance with the laws of the province and the municipality in which the driveway is situated." That wording requires drivers to comply with the Ottawa by-law that governs the 3+ HOV lane on the bridge. HTA s.154.1 only deals with provincial HOV lanes, all of which are 2+. I'm not a lawyer or paralegal, but I would think that, so long as the trial is at least six months after the offence date, the OP will be free and clear.
The charge probably should have been under s.4(1) of the NCCTPR. That subsection requires a driver to drive "in compliance with the laws of the province and the municipality in which the driveway is situated." That wording requires drivers to comply with the Ottawa by-law that governs the 3+ HOV lane on the bridge. HTA s.154.1 only deals with provincial HOV lanes, all of which are 2+.
I'm not a lawyer or paralegal, but I would think that, so long as the trial is at least six months after the offence date, the OP will be free and clear.
Can you provide a linkt to S.4(1) and S. 182(2) I'm looking here but I can't find much in this document: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/ ... -1044.html I'm pretty sure it was indeed an RCMP officer as I've seen them on that bridge before. Are you saying that the chances of getting it quashed over the incorrect charge are slim? Can they still amend it even after 6 months? I've already mailed the ticket requesting a court date and the officer to be present.[/quote] I think you will be able to get this quashed for incorrect charge. The court can amend clerical errors on a ticket at trial, such as the mistyping of the section number of the law or the slight misspelling of a name. However, in this case you were charged under the wrong piece of legislation and I don't think that counts as a simple clerical error. It is my understanding that in order to charge you under a different piece of legislation they would have to withdraw the original charge and file a new charge using the correct law, which they can't do after six month have passed from the date of the offence.
Can you provide a linkt to S.4(1) and S. 182(2)
I'm looking here but I can't find much in this document:
I'm pretty sure it was indeed an RCMP officer as I've seen them on that bridge before. Are you saying that the chances of getting it quashed over the incorrect charge are slim? Can they still amend it even after 6 months? I've already mailed the ticket requesting a court date and the officer to be present.[/quote]
I think you will be able to get this quashed for incorrect charge. The court can amend clerical errors on a ticket at trial, such as the mistyping of the section number of the law or the slight misspelling of a name. However, in this case you were charged under the wrong piece of legislation and I don't think that counts as a simple clerical error. It is my understanding that in order to charge you under a different piece of legislation they would have to withdraw the original charge and file a new charge using the correct law, which they can't do after six month have passed from the date of the offence.
I'm a little confused about this 6 month cut off period. In another thread you said that the charge can be amended even if six months have passed and jsherk said that it can happen "even DURING the trial if there is evidence to support the amendment". Does that mean that they can simply amend it at the trial even if my trial date is more than six months from the offence date?
Zatota wrote:
The charge probably should have been under s.4(1) of the NCCTPR. That subsection requires a driver to drive "in compliance with the laws of the province and the municipality in which the driveway is situated." That wording requires drivers to comply with the Ottawa by-law that governs the 3+ HOV lane on the bridge. HTA s.154.1 only deals with provincial HOV lanes, all of which are 2+.
I'm not a lawyer or paralegal, but I would think that, so long as the trial is at least six months after the offence date, the OP will be free and clear.
I'm a little confused about this 6 month cut off period. In another thread you said that the charge can be amended even if six months have passed and jsherk said that it can happen "even DURING the trial if there is evidence to support the amendment". Does that mean that they can simply amend it at the trial even if my trial date is more than six months from the offence date?
You're right. I wasn't fully focused when I wrote that. The prosecutor can amend the charge at any time. What I meant to say was that if you do win, the prosecutor withdraws the charge, etc., you cannot subsequently be charged with the correct offence after six months. If I were in your position, I wouldn't show up for trial. If the JP catches the incorrect section, he will quash the charge. If not, you'll win on appeal.
You're right. I wasn't fully focused when I wrote that. The prosecutor can amend the charge at any time. What I meant to say was that if you do win, the prosecutor withdraws the charge, etc., you cannot subsequently be charged with the correct offence after six months.
If I were in your position, I wouldn't show up for trial. If the JP catches the incorrect section, he will quash the charge. If not, you'll win on appeal.
But if I do show up and it's been six months and the original charge is still there, can they amend it once I ask the JP to quash it due to incorrect charge?
Zatota wrote:
You're right. I wasn't fully focused when I wrote that. The prosecutor can amend the charge at any time. What I meant to say was that if you do win, the prosecutor withdraws the charge, etc., you cannot subsequently be charged with the correct offence after six months.
If I were in your position, I wouldn't show up for trial. If the JP catches the incorrect section, he will quash the charge. If not, you'll win on appeal.
But if I do show up and it's been six months and the original charge is still there, can they amend it once I ask the JP to quash it due to incorrect charge?
I don't think that would work in this case. The cop didn't just put the incorrect section number on the ticket, he charged the OP using a piece of legislation that does not apply to the road the OP was driving on. I would have thought that in this scenario the best thing to do would be to show up to trial and show the JP that this piece of legislation does not apply to the road the OP was driving on at the time of the incident. While I know that they can amend tickets to fix clerical errors at trial, I don't think they can whole sale change the charge on you. To do that I think they would have to withdraw the original charge and issue a new summons, which they can't do after the six month statute of limitations.
Zatota wrote:
You're right. I wasn't fully focused when I wrote that. The prosecutor can amend the charge at any time. What I meant to say was that if you do win, the prosecutor withdraws the charge, etc., you cannot subsequently be charged with the correct offence after six months.
If I were in your position, I wouldn't show up for trial. If the JP catches the incorrect section, he will quash the charge. If not, you'll win on appeal.
I don't think that would work in this case. The cop didn't just put the incorrect section number on the ticket, he charged the OP using a piece of legislation that does not apply to the road the OP was driving on. I would have thought that in this scenario the best thing to do would be to show up to trial and show the JP that this piece of legislation does not apply to the road the OP was driving on at the time of the incident. While I know that they can amend tickets to fix clerical errors at trial, I don't think they can whole sale change the charge on you. To do that I think they would have to withdraw the original charge and issue a new summons, which they can't do after the six month statute of limitations.
You may be right. It's a completely different ballgame if the OP shows up having been charged under a provincial act and sees the charge changed to one under a federal act. Perhaps one of our "resident" experts could chime in.
You may be right. It's a completely different ballgame if the OP shows up having been charged under a provincial act and sees the charge changed to one under a federal act. Perhaps one of our "resident" experts could chime in.
OP: S.182(2) is simply the Disobey Sign charge, same penalty, 2 demerit points. As for the NCCTPR, the official Act is found here. All S.4(1) says is the Regs allow enforcement of any Provincial or Municipal traffic regulation by proxy. I won't say your chances are slim, but from my personal experience I would say you have at best a 50/50. I would say you're better off talking with the prosecutor and ask for NCCTPR S.6. Penalties are lower and there are no points as far as I know. I don't agree. I've seen it time and time again, especially with the NCCTPR, where the charge was amended at trial without issue. The six month limitation is to amend or charge a defendant in the first instance, but in this case the charge was laid within that time obviously. The amendment I am referring to is during the trial, thus as long as it goes to trial it can be done. Mind you the JP may always decline it and it does happen but not often; I'm only speaking from my personal experience though. Furthermore, case law has supported these amendments in the past as long as they are not prejudicial, i.e. if the spirit - and more importantly the jeopardy of the charge remains the similar. Swapping HTA to NCCTPR pursuant to the HTA is essentially the exact same charge, with the exact same penalties. Without getting into the weeds with the NCCTPR and all that, the fact is that it is not incorrect to charge under the HTA directly, because the NCCTPR is a higher Act referring to provincial legislation. In other words it's the exact same charge, but under a federal act instead of a provincial one. I know this sounds whacky to most people but it's one of those very many oddities in Ottawa... Where the OP has a better ground for negotiation is the 154.1 vs. 182(2) or NCCTPR 6. But even this is more or less a good ground because again, the idea is the disrespect of the HOV lane, which idea is the same whether you use 154.1, 6, 182(2) or even a By-Law. The only difference is the type of road, which is accessory to the action itself IMO. Hope this helps!
OP: S.182(2) is simply the Disobey Sign charge, same penalty, 2 demerit points.
As for the NCCTPR, the official Act is found here. All S.4(1) says is the Regs allow enforcement of any Provincial or Municipal traffic regulation by proxy.
I won't say your chances are slim, but from my personal experience I would say you have at best a 50/50. I would say you're better off talking with the prosecutor and ask for NCCTPR S.6. Penalties are lower and there are no points as far as I know.
daggx wrote:
I don't think that would work in this case. The cop didn't just put the incorrect section number on the ticket, he charged the OP using a piece of legislation that does not apply to the road the OP was driving on. I would have thought that in this scenario the best thing to do would be to show up to trial and show the JP that this piece of legislation does not apply to the road the OP was driving on at the time of the incident. While I know that they can amend tickets to fix clerical errors at trial, I don't think they can whole sale change the charge on you. To do that I think they would have to withdraw the original charge and issue a new summons, which they can't do after the six month statute of limitations.
I don't agree. I've seen it time and time again, especially with the NCCTPR, where the charge was amended at trial without issue.
The six month limitation is to amend or charge a defendant in the first instance, but in this case the charge was laid within that time obviously. The amendment I am referring to is during the trial, thus as long as it goes to trial it can be done. Mind you the JP may always decline it and it does happen but not often; I'm only speaking from my personal experience though. Furthermore, case law has supported these amendments in the past as long as they are not prejudicial, i.e. if the spirit - and more importantly the jeopardy of the charge remains the similar. Swapping HTA to NCCTPR pursuant to the HTA is essentially the exact same charge, with the exact same penalties.
Without getting into the weeds with the NCCTPR and all that, the fact is that it is not incorrect to charge under the HTA directly, because the NCCTPR is a higher Act referring to provincial legislation. In other words it's the exact same charge, but under a federal act instead of a provincial one. I know this sounds whacky to most people but it's one of those very many oddities in Ottawa...
Where the OP has a better ground for negotiation is the 154.1 vs. 182(2) or NCCTPR 6. But even this is more or less a good ground because again, the idea is the disrespect of the HOV lane, which idea is the same whether you use 154.1, 6, 182(2) or even a By-Law. The only difference is the type of road, which is accessory to the action itself IMO.
Hope this helps!
I am not a lawyer or para-legal: I do not offer legal advice nor should my comments be interpreted as such. I believe in respecting the law; don't be offended if I don't agree with you.
What is the penalty for NCCTPR 6? From what I can see 182(2) is essentially the same fine carrying 2 instead of 3 demerits but since I live in Quebec I shouldn't get any points.
devilsadvocate wrote:
OP: S.182(2) is simply the Disobey Sign charge, same penalty, 2 demerit points.
Where the OP has a better ground for negotiation is the 154.1 vs. 182(2) or NCCTPR 6. But even this is more or less a good ground because again, the idea is the disrespect of the HOV lane, which idea is the same whether you use 154.1, 6, 182(2) or even a By-Law. The only difference is the type of road, which is accessory to the action itself IMO.
Hope this helps!
What is the penalty for NCCTPR 6?
From what I can see 182(2) is essentially the same fine carrying 2 instead of 3 demerits but since I live in Quebec I shouldn't get any points.
So I got the same thing in January. Link: improper-use-of-high-occupancy-vehicle- ... t8039.html My court date is May 2. I assume I will be going to court before you about this matter, so I can certainly report back with what happened. So far, my understanding is to request them to drop the ticket once I meet with the prosecutor because of the wrong charge and show them that 154.1 (3) only applies to HOV lanes and not the Portage Bridge lane.
My court date is May 2. I assume I will be going to court before you about this matter, so I can certainly report back with what happened. So far, my understanding is to request them to drop the ticket once I meet with the prosecutor because of the wrong charge and show them that 154.1 (3) only applies to HOV lanes and not the Portage Bridge lane.
So I ended up missing the court date. I was expecting to receive a notice of conviction in the mail but when nothing arrived after a few weeks I called city to check the status of the ticket. They said "no funds owing" and instructed me to call the court and inquire. I called the court and the agent said that the ticket was withdrawn. Not sure why exactly, I guess I got lucky. If the officer didn't show up either would I still have gotten convicted in absence?
So I ended up missing the court date. I was expecting to receive a notice of conviction in the mail but when nothing arrived after a few weeks I called city to check the status of the ticket. They said "no funds owing" and instructed me to call the court and inquire. I called the court and the agent said that the ticket was withdrawn. Not sure why exactly, I guess I got lucky. If the officer didn't show up either would I still have gotten convicted in absence?
No, if you've set a trail date then the trial has to go ahead even if you are not there to give evidence on your behalf. The officer would take the stand and give evidence of the charge and you'd be convicted (except in one legendary case when the officer messed up the testimony and lost an unopposed trial !!). So, no, the charge was withdrawn prior to trial, likely because the crown saw something that was wrong.
No, if you've set a trail date then the trial has to go ahead even if you are not there to give evidence on your behalf. The officer would take the stand and give evidence of the charge and you'd be convicted (except in one legendary case when the officer messed up the testimony and lost an unopposed trial !!). So, no, the charge was withdrawn prior to trial, likely because the crown saw something that was wrong.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
If the defendant does not show up at trial, under the POA, a section 9.1 is conducted and without a hearing or the officer being on the stand a conviction is registered if the certificate of offence is regular on its face. The offcer is not required to be there for this process.
If the defendant does not show up at trial, under the POA, a section 9.1 is conducted and without a hearing or the officer being on the stand a conviction is registered if the certificate of offence is regular on its face.
The offcer is not required to be there for this process.
Not where I worked. Ex parte trials definitely occurred - very infrequently. Maybe it was only for summonses as opposed to trials as a result of a normal ticket........or else our courtroom worked differently ? You are, of course, correct about the Section 9.1 though so I'm not sure what was going on.
Decatur wrote:
If the defendant does not show up at trial, under the POA, a section 9.1 is conducted and without a hearing or the officer being on the stand a conviction is registered if the certificate of offence is regular on its face.
The offcer is not required to be there for this process.
Not where I worked. Ex parte trials definitely occurred - very infrequently. Maybe it was only for summonses as opposed to trials as a result of a normal ticket........or else our courtroom worked differently ? You are, of course, correct about the Section 9.1 though so I'm not sure what was going on.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
Congratulations! While it would have been interesting to see this one play out in court I'm still glad that you managed to come out of this on the winning side.
Congratulations! While it would have been interesting to see this one play out in court I'm still glad that you managed to come out of this on the winning side.
ok well here is my story .. I had an old megaphone from alarm system and decided since my horns on my car were rusted and were not making a loud enough sound.. i connected the alarm megaphone to the horn wires and it sounded very cool. depending on how log i hold my horn down for . due to the size of the power horn.. and mhy car being a Honda.. meaning no room under the hood i had installed it…
So I got this ticket because the lady behind me was WAY too close and I had to back up before getting hit by another car and dented her bumper.
Offense is stated as follows: Start from Stopped position - Not in Safety
Highway Traffic Act 142 (2)
First of all, I don't really know what that means and if it says that I was not in safety (which I wasn't) why am I getting a ticket? And why didn't the…
This is my first time ever getting a ticket and I am completely frustrated and don't know what to do.
On July 7th, I was driving to work, taking my usual route and it's about a 15 minute drive for me. At the first red light, I noticed I had a bit of time thanks to the countdown so I quickly reached into my bag to grab a lip balm. I noticed I had brought the wrong one so I just kept it out and…
It happened last December. I was facing north in the middle of the intersection at Donmills and McNicoll waiting to make a left turn. There was a big white van on the other side of McNicoll facing south waiting to turn left too. When the light changed to amber, I checked and the road was clear, there was no upcoming vehicle. So slowly I made the left turn. Suddenly a small car dashed up from…
First off, the most similar case and HELPFUL thread has y far come from neo333: a great read and very similar and relevant to my case and of course ticketcombat.com
I'll cole's notes this so that it can be concise and can recap my experience with disclosure, notes and failed stay request and adjourned court date. Thank you for reading and leaving your opinion.
I got a notice in the mail that trial is set four weeks from today, so it's time to request disclosure. I have zero chance of getting an 11b since trial is less than two months after the offense date and the officer did not reduce the charge. I really want to try and create delays on the trial, to reduce the chance of the officer showing up on multiple occasions. Is there any known loop-holes…
Got my first ticket last Thursday and I have a couple of questions. I was driving westbound on Moore St. (west of Bayview) and made a left onto a residential street at a 4-way stop sign. It was my first time driving through that area - was driving my girlfriend to a wisdom tooth surgery.
The police were set up to catch people, as that intersection had a no left turn sign from 7-9 am (buses…
I was in a light collision with a police vehicle last November and will be having a trial by the end of the month. What happened was I was pulled over. I stopped and kept my right signal on. The cop car then tried to pull behind me when he was on my left but 2 cars pulled behind me. The cop wasn't too smart and instead of waiting for the two cars to pull away, he drove forward and boxed all the…
A friend of mine (who is from China and with no knowledge of English at all) asked me to interpret for him on court.
He got pulled over by a stealth patrol car last october, got 3 tickets (fail to show insurance card, using cell phones and fail to stop on right for emergency vehicle) , court date is next week. He told me his insurance expired for less than a month and other charges are false…
My husband was driving my car and passed a school bus with flashing lights. He did not realize this until he was past the bus. The driver honked at him but there were no cops nearby and he didn't get pulled over. I believe the driver or witnesses reported this and we got issued a ticket in the mail. The ticket is under my name as the registered owner: charged with Fail to Stop for…
I have just got a ticket (Fail to yield on through highway) and by the way it's me first ticket and this is how I got it.
Me driving in a residential neighborhood maybe 10-15 km/h approaching a stop sign completely stopped at the stop sign started moving again turning right and out of nowhere I was hit by this van. he went directly to the driver's side fender,wheel, and bumper. Since it was my…
Hi I'm new to this forum but I hope I'm bringing you all good news.
I recently wrote a book short titled ABUSE OF POWER
This book is all about how the Ontario government broke the law to enact the new street racing legislation.
To start with the denial of the right to remain innocent until proven guilty was enacted without due process under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. How it wasn't done…
So i lent my car to my gf the other day and she went to drop her friend at a Go station but when she was turning left into the parking lot at the Go station a bus hits her from behind while she was turning so now my rear fender is pushed in and more scrathes and my bumper is damaged...but the cop that showed up just kept telling my gf thats its her fault cause its private property...is that true…
Hi, thanks for reading. I've read a bunch of articles online and searched the forum to try and find my answers but I'm still unsure so I'm creating a new thread.
I was following a car that was going SUPER fast down the DVP but I got pulled over. I was speeding, too; however I don't want to use the "you got the wrong guy" defence because I'll probably lose.
I left my home at 4 am to pick up my daughter from downtown Toronto. When I passed the major intersection south of my house there were two police cars in the middle of the intersection and one officer waved me through the intersection.
When I returned with my daughter at 5:30 am the police cars were still in the intersection. I slowed down as I approached the intersection but the police were no…
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.
When the court sends out the notice of trial, do they use the address the officer wrote on the ticket, or the actual address in the MTO database? In the case of the former, what are the implications? The reason I ask is that my wife got a ticket last week and the officer wrote the wrong city on it.
This topic discusses the same thing but with CN police; is it any different for regular offences?
Driving onto ramp entering a major highway, posted limit is 100km/h, suggested ramp limit is 40km/h - I end up colliding with the concrete barrier on the passenger side of the vehicle.
Police arrive, suspect alcohol and breathalyze me with a result of 0.00 - I am asked for a statement and cautioned, however (stupidly) I proceed to provide the details anyways.
My friends and I were heading to Kelso Beach, I had signalled and i pulled off to the shoulder as my car seemed to be making noise, but after riding over the shoulder the noise stopped, i signalled back again and merged back into traffic after making sure it was safe, the officer which was ahead of me on the shoulder a few meters away pulled me over.…
I've decided to fight a traffic ticket for stop sign violation. The offense was 12 months ago, and I've got a court date for next Tuesday. I've requested disclosure and, although a bit last minute, received it two weeks before my court date.
Upon reviewing the case materials, there isn't much of a defense I can find -based on the cop having an obstructed view, or any mistakes in the…
I will be going to trial for my red light camera offence.
I'll be arguing two issues, centered on the fact that there are two essential elements of 144(18) - a) a vehicle approaching the intersection shall stop; and b) the vehicle shall not proceed until green. Both essential elements must be contravened beyond a reasonable doubt to be an offence.
1) My ticket says I (being the owner) am "charged…
I'm a newbie, so be kind if I'm messing up. Question: is it illegal to signal oncoming traffic that they are approaching a speed trap by flashing one's lights?
I ask because I was stopped for doing that yesterday evening, but did not end up with a ticket. The officer spend 5-10 minutes n his car, then sent me on my way. I'm wondering if he changed his mind or found out it was legal.
ok well here is my story .. I had an old megaphone from alarm system and decided since my horns on my car were rusted and were not making a loud enough sound.. i connected the alarm megaphone to the horn wires and it sounded very cool. depending on how log i hold my horn down for . due to the size of the power horn.. and mhy car being a Honda.. meaning no room under the hood i had installed it…