Ontario Highway Traffic Act

Update: received a notice of motion from the prosecutor. Apparently one of the crown's witnesses is on vacation and won't be able to make it so the crown wants to adjourn. It doesn't specify if it's the police officer or the home owner but if it is the latter I don't know why he is considered essential as his evidence offers no value. So I will ...

I just mean that in the act itself, 199(1) references 199(3):
199. (1) Every person in charge of a motor vehicle or street car who is directly or indirectly involved in an accident shall, if the accident results in personal injuries or in damage to property apparently exceeding an amount prescribed by regulation, report the accident forthwith to ...

Oops. I was writing from memory and didn't realize 199(1) is different from 199.1.
Unfortunately she did not make a scan of the ticket before filing it, and the officer's copy given in the disclosure is completely illegible. But on the notice of trial it states "FL REPORT/FURNISH ACC/REQ. INFO", section 199(1). The furnishing info applies to 199(3 ...

Thanks jsherk!
Yes this case is definitely an example of why you should never talk to police and I think this person has learned that lesson!

1. I will try to get together a detailed "transcript" of the conversation hopefully by tomorrow and post it. I am not sure if she felt compelled but she was cautioned about halfway through the conversation ...

Hello everyone,
I am helping someone fight a fail to report charge. The trial is this coming Monday but I wanted to wait for disclosure before posting and we finally received it 3 days ago. Several of the disclosure items are extremely low quality scans so I don't have 100% of the prosecutor's information. I have sent another request for higher ...

I haven't heard of the Intention to Appear form before. With all of the tickets I've done it's always been tick option 3 and mail it in. Filed it yesterday and the clerk typed the correct address on the form.

Thanks jsherk I will do that to ensure due diligence, and also tell the clerk when I file it for trial (the ticket specifies it must be in person - no mail-in option).

On a side note, wouldn't the whole reopening process increase the chance of 11b? Or does that time not count?

When the court sends out the notice of trial, do they use the address the officer wrote on the ticket, or the actual address in the MTO database? In the case of the former, what are the implications? The reason I ask is that my wife got a ticket last week and the officer wrote the wrong city on it.

This topic discusses the same thing but with CN ...

I agree 100%. I always leave tons of room but people take this as an invitation to cut me off so I am constantly having to adjust. I also drive at the speed limit so quite often I am getting tailgated.

This charge seems like it would be very hard to prove unless a collision is involved which is why we probably don't see many of these tickets ...

R. v. Bland seems to be the go-to decision with regard to speedometer calibration. JPs seem to think that if the speedometer is capable of showing a steady speed then it must be working correctly. TRUE in a sense, but that doesn't mean it is showing the correct speed. I mean if I tune one of my guitar strings flat it will play the same wrong note ...

For it to be perjury there has to be the intention to lie and obstruct justice. No idea how you could prove something like that - it probably has to do with motive and whatnot. Maybe if the trial is about careless driving or something related to an accident, if the witness is currently suing the defendant. If the testimony has contradictory ...

So the trial date was yesterday and here is what happened. When we checked in the prosecutor of course tried to intimidate us with the amended speed and gave the choice of pleading guilty now or going to trial. I'm not sure if he was actually the prosecutor because it was a different person representing the crown in the courtroom. Anyway I replied ...

So this prosecutor doesn't want to cooperate. After my request for the full manual and proof of the officer's training, they actually sent an email on Friday with a letter and some explanation.
In regards to the manual, they provided 4 pages of the testing portion only. It states that if I wish to view the entire manual I may make arrangements with ...

Indeed I am looking at R. v Hawkins , wherein the requirement to visually observe the vehicle speeding is part of "tracking history" and is prescribed by the radar manual. However, I've read a bunch of lidar cases and it seems that every time without exception, the officer testifies that before activating the laser, he or she observed a vehicle ...

Sorry for the double-post. I was reading through the notes again and discovered an interesting nugget: there is no mention of determining a high rate of speed before obtaining a measurement. I am thinking along one of these scenarios:
1) The prosecutor asks the officer about this (or officer says it in his testimony). I object and motion to have ...