Search found 726 matches

This is where i'm confused. Certain media outlets have said that this is binding in the province but the case was not heard by a Superior Court Justice. It was heard by The Honourable Justice Shaun S. Nakatsuru of the Ontario Court of Justice.

I see that this case is from the Ontario Court of Justice and not from the Ontario Court of Appeal. Is this a binding decision throughout Ontario at the initial trial level usually heard by a Justice of the Peace?

Except it's not the Crown or the officer who makes the final decision about whether or not the charge can be amended. Its the court and it's not automatic in all cases.

So... with that line of thinking, every time someone is stopped for a certain infraction the officer should have no discretion and lay all applicable charges? Speeding (for the full amount), Fail to produce valid insurance card, fail to produce valid permit, ooops your licence plate light is out, oh my, the validation on your plate is in the wrong ...

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/e ... 0340_e.htm

Scroll down to find the section.

Here are the appropriate sections of the HTA that you would have been charged under. As for the permit charge, on occasion, they dont put a sticker on the back if they print you a new permit. Take a look at the front and there may be an expiry date printed on the plate portion that may have been valid on the offence date.
As for the tint charge it ...

I still don't know how people get so hung up about demerit points. They are simply used by the MTO to track poor driving habits. Insurance companies don't even care about them. They care about offences in general(major and minor). A good example is is the offence of "Drive-hand-held communication device" The total fine is $155 and no demerit points ...

Something doesn't add up. The total payable for failing to produce a permit is $110 and for 15 over is $52.50

The simple answer is yes.
As long as you follow the requirements of the HTA for making a right turn on a red light and where there are multiple lanes for making the turn. See sections 141 and 144.

Bye!

Careful with the insults about law enforcement officers. Some of the most helpful posters here are front line traffic officers. They may not be so helpful in the future.

Posted speeds are regardless of whether you are going downhill or uphill. Plea not guilty and get disclosure or have a first attendance meeting if they are offered and see if you can get it reduced to 15 over.

I don't even think they would use a stopwatch when a Genesis II Select Directional radar unit has the capability of measuring speed over distance built into it. All they need in the aircraft is the remote and the display box. Set the proper distance between the marks on the highway and simply start and stop when a motor vehicle hits two of the ...

A misspelled name is not a fatel error in the ticket and would not result in it being "quashed" I'd have more hope that the charge is in fact the wrong one and the prosecutor may withdraw it at an early resolution. They are even more likely if you can show that the plates have been replaced already.

HTA 13(2) should be the correct section. It's just a matter of which short form wording should be used. I'd likely use: "Entire plate not plainly visible" for a faded plate.
Obstruct plate is generally used for an object like a bike rack or a spare tire in the way.

The case that you've quoted actually had the offence written in the spot where the name of the act should have been. A totally different scenario than just leaving the section number out.

If you didn't have an Ontario licence when you were convicted, they created a DL number for you at the time. Because you didn't pay the fine you are a suspended driver in Ontario, regardless of whether you have a valid licence from another Province, State or country.

Driver is defined in the HTA.
You need to look at the specific act in question for its own definitions. They are found at the beginning of the act, parts and on occasion at the start of a section.
If a word is not defined a dictionary can be used but you have to keep in mind the context of the word.
Definitions from the Criminal Code do not ...

Highway Traffic Act R.R.O. 1990, REGULATION 613
Section 7(3) The driver of a taxicab while transporting for hire a passenger is exempt from subsection 106 (2) of the Act.

That ticket won't get too far. I'm betting that the prosecutor will pull that one. Just in case, I hope you've kept your fare logs and possibly got the passengers information ...

Dangerous Driving is a Criminal charge and will generally not be dealt with on this forum except to say that you need to seek legal counsel.

Wonder why we got all new stock of Pon's then? We turned in all of our old ones and the new accused copy is blue instead of yellow. Our new ones are the Form 3 in the link provided.

FYI.
The municipality has to opt in to the early resolution program. The back of our PON's didn't change Option 2 at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Your ticket is for 70 in a 60? Weigh the risk of pleading guilty before trial and pay the set fine, or go to trial and risk a larger fine and demerit points. Most courts are unlikely to listen to the "poverty" line. What they will do is give you is time to pay the fine and if you need more time and can show that you have ...

From examining the notes, it also looks like the officer may actually have locked the radar at 89 km/h in a 60 and only issued you a ticket for 70 km/h. If you decide to go to trial, beware that the prosecutor will probably bump the speed back up to 89 km/h. More $$ and demerit points added if convicted.

There's no sense looking for defenses or case law at this time. Request a trial and then request disclosure of the officers notes and the testing procedure for the make and model of radar used and then you can figure out where to go from there.

The first thing you need to do is get your daughters consent to fight the ticket. Without it, you can't proceed any further.

gar- Please remove my comments from this post as they are from another un-related post.

I'm sure one of the Administrators will post shortly to advise you that this forum does not assist with or comment on any Criminal charges.
One word for you: Lawyer

Fault in a motor vehicle collision is determined by the Fault Determination Rules. (Regulation 668 under the Ontario Insurance Act) Whether a ticket is issued does not generally factor into that determination. If you were rear ended , the driver of the other mv is 100% at fault. Let your insurance company do the work for you.They will generally get ...

OK. I haven't been on the road for two weeks and Stanton has me second guessing myself......