Picking up or just holding the device is enough for a conviction in a Ontario. It doesn’t matter if you weren’t talking or texting. The only way you’re going to find out if the original was signed is to apply to have the case reopened, have that motion granted and obtain a copy of it as part of disc...

It depends. First, if it was an electronic ticket, they aren’t signed. Second, if it isn’t, your ticket is actually a copy and the Justice of the Peace would have no idea whether your copy was signed or not. Obviously the original was, because you were convicted. R. v Wadood now allows for officers ...

It’s the driver’s responsibility to ensure that a motor vehicle is fit for the road. This would include dealing with a recall and perhaps not driving it until it’s fixed. Speeding is an absolute liability offence, which means you either were or weren’t speeding. You got a deal with the 15 over. If y...

These signs are perfectly legal on federal NCC roadways. Generally enforcement is done by the RCMP but OPP and Ottawa police can enforce it as well. The maximum speed on NCC roads is 60 km/h by regulation and actually doesnt need to be posted unless it deviates from that.

It is legal to ride side by side in Ontario. Not the safest practice but there’s nothing in the HTA to prohibit it.

It is valid. The actual speed is not part of the short wording for a stunt offence.

There’s no requirement to lock the device at the highest speed obtained. It’s quite common to clear a locked speed to see if someone is speeding up or slowing down. There’s also no requirement to show you the speed displayed on the device.

I'm just curious, where was the alleged offence, and what type of speed measuring device was used. Some of the disclosure doesn't make sense for an officer written ticket.

No. The registered owner is issued the ticket. Identification of the driver isn’t necessary.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2 ... pletePos=7

Region of York v McGuigan

And it’s binding on lower courts. The only possibility of turning this one over would be taking a similar case to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

There seems to be a serious flaw in the process that the officer has followed. Under section 172(5) it states that the if the officer believes on rpg that a person has driven in contravention of subsection 1, the officer shall request that the person surrender their licence and SHALL detain the moto...

In order for you to proceed wth an O’Connor application, you’re likely to spend several days in court, even before you see a trial if that’s where you end up.

Just so you’re aware. A 2017 OCA case R v Davis, allows the officer to modify the ticket after service in most cases.

You can’t score if you don’t shoot the puck! If you have time to go to the meeting and don’t have any convictions, they may reduce it further if you’re apologetic and don’t go in with a chip on your shoulder. If they don’t offer you anything further , you can simply offer to pay it. If y...

On the first page of the notes, last line, arrow pointing down usually means you were slowing 150 down to 149. Technically stunt driving at 150. The officer decided to charge you at 149. If you take this to trial and the officer testifies that you were driving 150, the prosecutor will probably amend...