Search found 726 matches

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 motor vehicle. IMO this process must be followed if ...

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 you need more time to pay, that can also be easily arranged ...

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 the ticket up to the original speed. In that case ...

Disclosure is the responsibility of the prosecutor. The police wont give you the manual.

That book is not used in training officers on the use of radar in Ontario. Most officers have probably never even heard of it. Depending on its publication date, it may even be very outdated.

As per this case: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2 ... sc436.html

There is no longer a requirement to provide any portion of the manual.

This thread is over a year old. Please do not post to outdated threads.

Youre not likely to get a lot of assistance with case law from Alberta. We are much more familiar with Ontario case law here.
For example, in Ontario the manual does not have to be produced nor an operator certificate.

This post is over six years old. Do not post to threads more than 30 days old unless youre the OP. Please read the forum rules prior to posting again.

Walk into Service Ontario with the plate portion and advise them that the vehicle has been sold. If you have use for the plates and are not turning them in, they will list them as unattached.

The owner of the motor vehicle is also responsible for notifying the Ministry on ceasing to be the owner.

The only way around it is if youre willing to accept a $110 ticket for it every time youre pulled over. After about the second or third time, be prepared for a Summons.

Youre actually lucky that you received any portion of the manual. Recent case law doesnt require disclosure of any parts of speed measuring device manuals.

Id certainly put someones knowledge, skills and abilities above a piece of paper any day of the week. A certificate is only worth the paper its printed on.

Youre not likely to get an answer from jsherk. Thats a banned account.

You're misreading it. There is no need to post signs in a built up area unless the maximum speed is something other than the statutory maximum of 50 km/h. Likewise there is no need to post 80 km/h in the more rural areas. You might also want to check the Bylaw for Barrie. All of their speed variations are in it. If a street isn't listed, it's 50 km/h

If the 50 km/h maximum was "within a local municipality or within a built-up area" as per section 128(1)(a) there is no requirement to post any signs. There is only a requirement under section 2(1) of that regulation to post signs "where a maximum rate of speed other than that prescribed by subsection 128 (1) of the Act is prescribed"

Under ...

A dismissal wont even be on the table. They may provide you with disclosure in two days and reschedule the trial.

About disclosure. Its your disclosure. Once you request it, its your responsibility to get it and to check to see if its ready. Theres no requirement for them to bend over backwards to make sure you get it.

Here it is:

Where to stop – intersection
(5) A driver who is directed by a traffic control signal erected at an intersection to stop his or her vehicle shall stop,

(a) at the sign or roadway marking indicating where the stop is to be made;

(b) if there is no sign or marking, immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk; or

(c) if there is ...

A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision allows officers to amend a Certificate of Offence after the Offence Notice has been served. Your Offence Notice may not have a fatal flaw. The only way to find out would be to file an appeal with the court.

They have six months from the date of the offence to serve a summons.

With an offence date of June, its not likely that they will withdraw a charge. More likely to get disclosure that day and have it put off to another date.
You also indicate thats you received no reply to your disclosure request. Its actually your responsibility to contact them to see if disclosure is ready.

The blacked out name may be the radar/Lidar instructors name who qualified him. Thes are the officers notes rpthat are made to refresh his/her memory. Its not an all inclusive diary. Youll probably have to get the officer on the stand to clarify these points. If theres no indication of an end of shift test, you may be in a better position for a win ...

It appears that he simply tested two different speed measuring devices. One a laser and the other a moving radar.

Trials in absentia are used for offences where a Summons is issued. The officer is then required to present their evidence to establish a conviction.