Search found 726 matches

Has to have been a glitch in the datatbase. A suspension for support payments is a mandatory seizure of the motor vehicle for 7 days and I just can't see anyone knowingly ignoring it. Guess it was your lucky day.

+1

Those slight errors aren't enough to force a fatal error under any circumstances.
Forget about using a defence as one of passing a police car that was going annoyingly slow at 110 km/h.

Agree with Bend.

The crosswalk is well before the manhole cover seen in the lower right corner of your picture. You must stop immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk.

Section 7 1 b i also indicates the the number plates have to be displaced in the prescribed manner. The "prescibed manner" is in Regulation 628 and says: "The number plates for a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle or a motor assisted bicycle, shall be attached to and exposed in a conspicuous position on the front and rear of the motor vehicle ...

Always park as traffic would normally flow. Passenger side to the curb or edge of the roadway. The exception would be on a one way street and that would allow vehicles to park on both sides. (exceptions would be for any existing by-laws of course)

The ADLS system is above and beyond what a court may give a driver as well as the administrative fee to get the licence back at the end of the 90 days. I know that if I see multiple ADLS suspensions on someones record, I'm going to pay more attention to their driving.

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic5259.html
This topic was just covered.

The roadside isn't the time or place to have any discussion about the offence in question. The officer isn't likely to make any notes about "your story" his notes are his own evidence. I don't generally note any excuses or stories in my book or on the ticket because I can't use them as evidence if it goes to court.

You're not likely to get a officers schedule because they don't have one. It's not as if they take appointments when they are on the road. They answer calls as needed.
If you're asking if you can get a copy of their notes for the day, the answer is no. Only notes made in relation to the incident will be disclosed.

Ummmm. Seatbelts have been mandatory in Ontario since 1976.

Where do i begin?
1) You don't get a ticket in the mail. It's issued in person to the owner of the vehicle or the driver if they can be identified.
2) It's everyones responsibility to ensure the safety of other on a highway.
3) It's not classified as a "crime" it's a violation of a Provincial Act.
4) It would be up to the court to determine who's ...

I agree that it's $355. The original isn't a carbon copy. It's the one the officer actually wrote on. I'd be asking at some point for a copy of the original to see if it's been altered after you were issued the Offence Notice. I'm not familiar enough with the input process to know where the tickets go after they are turned in at the end of a shift ...

You should have kept this post with your original thread.
The only thing I can think of is that your copy of the ticket looks like $355 and the original is actually $359. Altering a ticket after service isn't allowed except by the court and the ticket should be quashed if that's the case, but the JP wouldn't even know if that happened. You may have ...

The plate portion is the only portion that can be signed, so, yes. You have to sign it.

1) You're going to trial on both tickets now and the speeding ticket will likely be the original speed.
2) Chances aren't good that you'll get another deal
3) A stay is very unlikely. If you don't get disclosure in time you can always request an adjournment. Likely the prosecutor will be ready to go to trial on May 24th, be ready just in case the ...

I don't know why you're so concerned about demerit points. They are simply a means for the MTO to track poor drivers. Insurance companies are more concerned with convictions and not the points themselves. Any conviction for a bylaw offence would be better than an HTA conviction. Even if the fine was slightly higher.

My bad. i should have put my cheaters on. It is $359. Maybe the officers 9 looks like a 5 on your copy??

1) The date is amendable in court and is not a fatal flaw.
2) Just looked in the notebook comanion and the set fine for 49 over is $249 and the total payable is $355.
Section 128 is correct for the charge and no sub-section is required.

I see no fatal flaws in your ticket.

Most jurisdictions won't accept a request for disclosure until a Notice of Trial is sent out. You may have to wait a bit.

You should really contact the prosecutor by phone as a courtesy and give them a heads up. They may even consent to an adjournment as long as you fax a copy of the Dr. letter before the trial date. Can't hurt to try.

Looks like a spam monkey had hit. Admin., please make it go away!!

The officer was using a handheld radar and would have had it pointed down the roadway at your vehicle and not at the vehicles exiting the highway. It's not likey the radar beam would be wide enough to pick up the other vehicle.

"My original defense was going to be the fact that the officer did not perform calibration / testing on the Genesis II unit AFTER the shift was over, and that I was not provided any documentation in disclosure regarding the officer's competencies and training for the radar unit, even though it was specifically asked for."
It appears that they just ...

Your best bet is to simply do an internet search on how police radar works and request disclosure of the officers notes to see what evidence they actually have. Until you know where exactly you were when the officer caught you speeding, you can't assume that you were in that line of traffic.
Moving radar is capable of picking up a single vehicle in ...

You might not want to bring up most of what you posted if there is a trial.
1) You admitted that you saw police lights in your rearview mirror and yet continued driving for 40 seconds before pulling over.
2) What did you actually think OPP dispatch would be able to do?
3) The officer doesn't have to show you the radar at roadside as it's generally ...

The court did have jusrisdiction and could have heard they charge or had it moved to the other jurisdiction. Maybe the JP was being lazy?

It's not going to matter because under the Provncial Offences Act if the offence happens in a jusrisdiction adjacent to the court actually listed for the appearance , they can hold the trial there.

Territorial jurisdiction

29. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a proceeding in respect of an offence shall be heard and determined by the Ontario Court ...

You didn't receive a "ticket". That would be a Part III Summons with a court appearance. Details on the Summons will be amended if needed.