Search found 726 matches

I've stopped someone for 93 over and they had no prior driving convictions. The fine was $2,000 and a one year suspension. In truth, the Justice wanted to put the driver in jail for a short term had the prosecution and defence not come to an agreement.
I strongly recommend counsel or you may end up in jail.

"So from what I understand from the above if that is correct once the fine is paid and license has been reinstated it comes off the record. But still wouldn't it show that the license had been suspended before at renewal time? It doesn't really specify if the whole incident comes off the record or just the outstanding fine."

I run DL histories all ...

Envirmant Canada reports will do you no good. You're supposed to adjust your driving to conditions.

"So would I not need to be charged under 128(1) for regular speeding, whereas it would be 128(8) for construction zone?"
No.
Those are the subsections listed in the HTA.
There is no subsection used on a Certificate of Offence for the charge of speeding. Just slight additions to the short form wording depending on whether the offence was in a ...

"Probable cause" is a term used in the USA. There is nothing in Canadian law that says the officer has to "witness the vehicle at a high rate of speed" prior to turning on the radar. However, as part of a tracking history, the operator should observe the target travelling above the posted speed limit and then activate the radar. The radar simply ...

So now the question becomes: Is stating the section simply as "128" considered a wrong section number or an omitted section number?

It's neither. It's the correct section number as it stands. There is no sub-section.

1) If it's an old thread, start a new one.
2) That is the section number for speeding. No subsection required. No fatal error.

My favourite answer "it depends"
See Simons bolg here: http://www.simonborys.ca/2011/06/demeri ... n-ontario/

You've failed to mention what you are suspended for? Because this is a new charge, it has no relation to the prior case and you'll have to fight this new one. In Ontario a vehicle may be impouded for the following
Under the Road Safety Act, 2009, three new seven-day vehicle impoundments are effective December 1, 2010. These are in addition to the ...

Modern units will also not function when they detect harmonics or a level of RFI that is too high. Moving radar equipped with a VIP will also eliminate shadowing and batching by comparing the vehicle speed and the low doppker that is received.

Radar requal in Ontario is every 36 months for an Operator. If 1990 is his original date, I'd question them about their most recent requal.

Radar and Lidar only need to be calibrated when originally shipped to the police agency and after repairs are done. There is no requirement for annual calibration. Tuning forks (which are not required for most radar) are also not required to have calibration. In fact by using a tuning fork with a radar you are actually doing more of a test on the ...

The prohibition does cover private property. Read on in section 259(4). This is the actual charge section.
Operation while disqualified

(4) Every offender who operates a motor vehicle, vessel or aircraft or any railway equipment in Canada while disqualified from doing so, other than an offender who is registered in an alcohol ignition interlock ...

Read section 175 of the HTA. Too long to post.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statut ... .htm#BK254

It looks like your photo from 60m away was taken from a point right next to the curb and not where traffic would normally be driving. That would change the angle and allow the sign to be seen from a greater distance. For the second photo, the stop line is very clear and it's in no way obstructed by trees or the hedge.

It also appears that all of these cases are from the Ontario Court of Justice and made by a Justice of the Peace. These decisions are not binding on any other JP.
You should ask for a written explanation of any shortforms used. That may clear up some of the issues.

The normal remedy for what you may believe to be incomplete disclosure is and adjournment. Just because you ask for something in disclosure doesn't mean it will be provided. This next appearance will be your opportunity to tell the Justice of the Peace why you believe that the entire manual is required for your defence.
Out of curiosity, which ...

Additionally, you've probably been found at fault by your insurance company under the Ontario fault determination rules. These rules apply regardless of whether there is a charge laid or not.

The only way to avoid demerit points is to be found guilty of an offence that has no demerit points associated with it. The points are applied to your licence by the MTO and not the courts.

The following section of the HTA is pretty clear. If it's a section of 400 series with more than 2 lanes you pull to the nearest edge of the roadway. If only 2, then you have to pull to the right.

159. (1) The driver of a vehicle, upon the approach of a police department vehicle with its bell or siren sounding or with its lamp producing ...

Just start deleting the entire post and ban the account name.

I tend to agree with Stanton and bend. The officer would be negligent if they didn't consider the totality of the events leading up to the collision that just happened to end on private property. Pre collision events are often the most important things to consider.
The case cited is also one that occurs entirely on private property and does not ...

A Summons can be issued under Part I or Part III and are generally used when there is no set fine available to the officer or if a higher fine is being asked for. I've seen them used if a person has multiple convictions for a similar offence.

The stop sign may still be on city/town property. Most municipalities have a large allowance of property well back from most roads to allow for infrastructure under the ground. You'd have to do some research to find out in each case.

The officers ticket is a carbon copy of what you have.
Common practice of most courts is to simply give a copy of the officers notes as part of disclosure. A second request is required if the officers notes are not legible and/or abbreviations need to be explained.

The other information that I requested like copy of ticket, maintenance records/ calibration records, witness will say statements, officer training records,etc was not provided.

1)You have a copy of the ticket. (Unless of course you turned it in without making your own copy first)
2)Maintenance/calibration records you will generally not get
3 ...

Considering how the OP is just an "acquaintance" and was probably not there, it doesn't appear we have enough details to be of any help. As I posted earlier, the charged person should be seeking legal counsel right away.

Criminal matters are generally not dealt with on this forum. I would strongly suggest that your friend contact legal counsel.

That's because dogs don't have opposable thumbs and can't use a handheld device, put on makeup, shave, eat a bowl of cereal or read a book while driving. All of which i've actually seen.

The simple answer is yes. But not likely to happen in that scenario. Even a Part I issued for the offence would probably incur the wrath of most court offices, prosectors and Justices.