Search found 726 matches

If the defendant does not show up at trial, under the POA, a section 9.1 is conducted and without a hearing or the officer being on the stand a conviction is registered if the certificate of offence is regular on its face.
The offcer is not required to be there for this process.

Whether you own the vehicle or not has no bearing on what a fine should be in this case, and most others. Zero points is not an option if convicted of this offence.
Maybe the prosecutor needs to go back to school.

I honestly don't think the prosecutor knows what they're talking about. There is no short wording for the offence of owner use handheld device. Demerit points are also out of the control of the JP and prosecutor. They are applied by the MTO after a conviction.
What charge are they actually using to eliminate the demerit points?

If you're turning from a one way street to a one way street you can go left on a red light.

No. Because it's not a device "prescribed" by Regualtion 366/09

A fatal error is something on the face of a ticket that a JP can see is obviously an egregious error. An example would be no city or location, no name of an accused, etc. Remember that the JP does not have the privilege of knowing the evidence related to the ticket at the time and they are also not privilege to the defendants copy of the ticket so ...

What other people were doing on Google maps won't have any effect on any current ticket. You just happen to have been caught on that particular day.

Of course It's a two way street. Otherwise traffic could go down and not get out or visa versa.
Traffic must generally park with right wheels to the curb line.
You won't find any ministry documents to help you out either. It's a by-law and you should be able to locate it on the website for the local municipality. Check the ticket for the bylaw ...

Just so you're aware, the Provincial Offence Officer who certifies, does NOT have to appear in court just because you want them there. You're not likely to get a JP to order the appearance.
As per the HTA:

Challenge to officers evidence
205.20 (1) The provincial offences officer who used the evidence obtained through the use of a red light ...

They can't charge the owner for speeding or stunt. They have to identify the driver.

A 300 m shot with a beam width of .75m (yes that is the correct width for some Lidar) is very easy with a motor vehicle approaching while your off to the side of the road. With zero magnification as well. It's an every day occurrence.

Take a shot by adding that your first option would be to have the case withdrawn, then the next option would be to have an adjournment attributable to the prosecutor.

You can't get a hit if you don't swing.

The trial can also be held in any adjacent jurisdiction. As per the Ontario Provincial Offences Act.

If you're basing your appeal on the fact that the Lidar was "inaccurate" you're going to have a very difficult time. From you description it sounds like the officer was not level with the path of travel and off to the side. This would produce a cosine angle affect that would put the reading displayed as lower than how fast you were actually ...

The prosecutor doesn't read the charges out in court. The Court Clerk or sometimes the JP does this. It's not usually done until just before the accused enters a plea of guilty or not guilty. In your case you're attempting to do neither.

Slight correction. Speeding is always absolute liability. The offence of stunt driving with the speeding component is strict liability.

102(2) doesn't mean that the owner can be convicted of those offences like a red light camera offence. It simply says you that the owner can't be convicted under section 182. Unless they were also the driver. But the conviction would be against them as the driver. 182(2) has no provision in the section to charge an owner.

Having a valid licence is not a condition of owning a motor vehicle. Someone who's never had a licence can still own a motor vehicle. MTO simply creates a RIN for the person.
They'll likely use the old RIN.. (which in a lot of cases is the same as the DL number)

I thought it was a 9.1. Oh well....

You're probably also going to want a transcript for the court that convicted you. You'll likely have to pay for this as well.

Ah. The "shopping list"
o a full copy of the police officers notes;
You'll get this
o a copy of both sides of the officers copy of the ticket (Notice of Offence);
You may get another of this. You may still have your copy
o a typed version of any hand written notes;
You won't get this unless item one isn't legible
o witness will say statements ...

Without knowing what you requested for disclosure, I don't think anyone could offer and suggestions.
Can you clarify what you asked for?

The Passenger/Light-Duty Vehicle Inspection Standard of 70% of light transmittance is not roadside enforceable and there is no charge under the HTA based on a percentage for any window covering.

The enforcement section under the HTA is still based on section 73.

Equipment obstructing view
Signs, objects, etc.
73 (1) No person shall drive a motor ...

The lesser offence that may be possible would be to plea guilty to the same offence but as the owner of the motor vehicle, if the OP is the owner. No demerit points but the same fine and it wouldn't affect insurance rates. If they offer this one I'd jump at it! The fines can actually be paid over time if you need it.

Driving under suspension for unpaid fines doesn't result in a vehicle seizure. What are you allegedly suspended for? If you paid off some fines, you may have multiple suspensions for different reasons on your record.

Only if it's lessened to a charge that doesn't have demerit points.

If you're convicted of the offence as charged, they can't lessen the demerit points. The courts have no say in demerit points. They are administered by the MTO.

It's not a poa ticket for drive under suspension. It wouldn't be in the same database as Part one tickets.
Your Part three summons is a slightly different process and may even be under the jurisdiction of the Crown Attorneys office and not the municipal prosecutor. Deep ending on when your court date is, it may not even be processed yet.
You'll ...

"The system" does not include the computer network that the police use. If anything, some access to some users may indicate whether the vehicle is insured or not, but the is based on the information that is submitted when a validation sticker is renewed. This information is usually not accurate or incomplete. You still have to carry your valid ...

1- There's no way i'm taking someones phone back to a police vehicle.
2- I'm not going to stand at roadside to write notes/evidence for any potential charges.