Search found 726 matches

Your first step is to get the permission of the charged person to even take this to court. Without that, there's nothing that you can do.

AI-013 is a Provincial Standard. It's the same for all agencies in Ontario. You just have to find the current one.

I just had a quick look through the NHTSA standard and I couldn't find anything that indicates that tuning forks must be included and used in operator testing.
The only thing I saw was that when a manufacturer submits a device for testing it must be accompanied by them.

1. Haven't used tuning forks for years and I certainly don't miss them. Check case law on "tuning forks."
2. I say "most" because I don't know anyone elses practices or training programs. It would be rather arrogant of me to assume that we are all perfect. More than reading the manual is required in Ontario. Again.... caselaw.....
3.a There is no ...

Police speed measuring devices will not pick up the vibration of a bridge or railway line.

Some interference from electronic devices may occur if you point the speed measuring device directly at them. It's simply a matter of moving the device.

Modern police speed measuring devices internally eliminate electromagnetic interference (EMI) and are ...

Do a forum search on entrapment. I believe this was covered in a prior post.

"Any object, bridge, railway line, powerlines will cause interference and doubt the readings." Not true. Some of these MAY cause interference under some circumstances. However, interference is not additive to the reading it just cuts down on the range at which the officer may pick up the vehicle. I've never seen a stationary object like a bridge or ...

You may want to do a search on Tuning Forks on the Canlii website. There are numerous cases including appeals which hold up the testing procedures used here in Ontario. I woudn't say that the Ontario versions are "stripped down" at all. They never even come with tuning forks. The bottom line when it comes to most radar is that if the officer does ...

I wouldn`t get too caught up in the NHTSA Specifications. They are simply what is used to produce the IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police) Conforming Product List. The IACP produces a list of both LIDAR and speed measuring devices that are in compliance with those specifications. These lists are available online.

You can change your plea to guilty and pay the 49 over anytime up until the start of the trial. This is also the point at which the prosecutor may request that the speed be "amended up" Not quite sure how backlogged the courts in Ottawa are for a traial date though. Have you considerd what to do if they give you a date before November 27?

Are they ever slow on the news. That case is from June.

It's likely that any device purchased in Canada for speed measurement has conformed to IC standards or they wouldn't be allowed in the country to begin with. I wouldn't spend too much time on this.

The only way to avoid the suspension is to be found not guilty.

Not likely. All they have to do is look at the original offence notice and even if there is a clerical error and the officer isn't in court, the prosecution will likely request and adjournment.

The 24 hr suspension is an automaitic roadside suspension. If you are convicted of the novice driver b.a.c above zero, you will be suspended by the MTO for a further 30 days.
I'm surprised that the officer let you off with the provincial offences if you blew a fail.

The Notice of Trial is not a charging document and any errors are not fatal to the charge. These documents are typed up by court staff well after the fact and well known to have minor errors.

You're not likely to get a certificate of conformance/compliance from the police. I've never seen on included ith a new radar or lidar. The only documents usually included are a copy of the manual, warranty information and the original certificate of calibration. You may have to try Industry Canada for this.
As for an FOI request, you have to go to ...

According to your original post, you said you failed the "breathalyzer". I assume you meant the roadside test. Normally you would have been taken to the police station for a breathalyzer test after that and if you failed, you would now be facing a Criminal charge. That's how you got off easy.

I grabbed the wrong binder and am not back in until Thursday. In the mean time, try http://www.canlii.org/en/ Do a search on radar training. Just be aware that some of the decisions listed many be from lower courts and are not binding on others.
I'll try to grab it on Thursday.

Looks like the route also must be "designated" as well. Look for an Appendix to the by-law and it may be listed.

Those are two totally different documents. The last one is part of the Police Services Act and is an actual Provincial law. The first document is a "guidline" There is some case law that speaks to "training" I just can't seem to find it at the moment but will be able to access it tomorrow. Will repost at that time. You may have to use a Freedom of ...

You're in a bit of a catch-22 situation. Under the HTA you have to have the name of the owner on a commercial vehicle, so if you take it off you violate the HTA section 103(1). If you leave it on, you could get towed. Magnetic logo for the side of the truck?
The bylaw looks like it allows trucks, just not ones used for commercial purposes.
Looks ...

A co-op housing parking lot is considered private property and would be covererd by their own policies and by-laws of the co-op. They can pretty much tow any motor vehicle that violates these by-laws. Local police or by-law enforcement would not normally be involved in the process. It sounds like your truck does fit into the HTA definition of ...

That document has been replaced in 2011 by an updated version and is no longer in force. Those guidelines are also exactly that. Guides. They hold no force in law. If you read them, they use words like "should" and "may". As for the officers training, ask them on the stand when he/she was originally trained and the last requal date. Problem solved.

It has been changed already to "at least every 36 months"

You're not going to get a copy of the manual as part of dislosure, nor training records of the officer. The most you'll get is a copy of the tesing procedure for the radar that was used. Some jurisdictions will allow you to view the manual and you can make notes at that time.
If you insist on getting all of the disclosure you are asking for, you ...

I don't belive the units in Canada and the US are different, other than the unit of measure. The major difference is in the testing procedure for the radar. We don't us tuning forks as part of the test. The only way to really tell the difference would be to compare two units and two manuals. I've never seen a current US manual nor a US radar. They ...

Interference can come from many sources including the fan. This interference does not affect the accuracy of the radar, nor is any reading additive to the target speed. The range at which targets may be picked up may be reduced. This wouldnt normally occur if the radar is pointed out a side window.
If they have and are using a GHD/Scout they should ...

They don't simply "hand over" disclosure. Choose option 3 on the ticket and when you get a notice of trial, request it from the prosecutor. See the section on Ontario Traffic ticket help articles.

These are not the same unit, however they function in the same basic manner. The VPD is battery powered and the GHD is plugged in to a 12v outlet. The VPD is no longer manufactured and has been replaced in the Decatur line by the Scout. The main reason they no longer make the VPD is that it uses the Black and Decker Versapak batteries and they ...