Oh, one more question... if this goes to trial - could any portion of the ticket be changed under Provincial Offences Act s. 34? eg. could the ticket be amended so that the HTA section cited is changed to the correct section 7? Or do you think at early resolution the prosecutor will see this and just quash it themselves?

Side question: does a prosecutor at early resolution even have the authority to quash a ticket?

Thanks for the quick reply. We'll see how it goes.

@argyll, To clarify, this is what is written on the ticket in each section. In "quotes" is what the officer has written. Did commit the offence of: "Fail to surrender permit for motor vehicle." Contrary to: "Highway Traffic Act" Section: "128" Set fine of: "$85.00" / Total Payable: "$110.00" But, as per above, s.128 is about speeding and has nothing to do with "fail to surrender permit". Again, I believe the officer wrote s.128 simply because they were operating a radar trap at the time and that is what was likely on their m...

Thanks for the reply.

Any thoughts on the process of requesting a trial, not showing up and being convicted, and then appealing on the basis of wrongful conviction (for speeding when the ticket is clearly about the permit)?

Hi there, would appreciate if someone can speak to the possibility of this ticket being quashed. Nutshell: the officer's notes are about failure to produce a permit, with the corresponding set fine of $85. However, the HTA section cited is 128, for speeding. Went through a radar trap and was signalled to pull over. Was told by the officer that I was going 20 km/h over the limit, and asked to produce license and registration. I keep a photocopy of the registration in the car (which I understand is allowed, a "true copy"). On the backside of the photocopy is only the license plate rene...

Court date is in August... I'll post the outcome.

@argyll, thanks for your replies, I appreciate the counter points to consider.

It's true that I'm being narrowly focused on the details of my particular offence, and while that may be clouding my view of the situation, I do think that the details matter when applying the law.

@argyll, thank you for your response, that gives me something to think about. If I could offer a couple of counter points (which is good practice for me in preparation for court, so thanks again!)... in the "Guide For Defendants in Provincial Offences Cases" it clearly states "For you to be found guilty there must be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of each essential element of the offence." Therefore, I find it hard to accept a statement like "just because the pictures do not contain all elements of the offence does not meant that the charge is not made out." I...

I've just posted separately on this same subject, but to join in here: @bend said: "The purpose of the first picture is not to show you across the line. It's to show your vehicle at the line while the light is already red. It's to show the light had already been red before you entered the intersection." Technically/legally speaking (per 144(18)), the first photo is supposed to be evidence of the first element of the offence: "Every driver APPROACHING a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle..." And yo...

I will be going to trial for my red light camera offence. I'll be arguing two issues, centered on the fact that there are two essential elements of 144(18) - a) a vehicle approaching the intersection shall stop; and b) the vehicle shall not proceed until green. Both essential elements must be contravened beyond a reasonable doubt to be an offence. 1) My ticket says I (being the owner) am "charged with the offence of failing to stop at a red light on ... at 11:24 AM. However, the second photo which shows the vehicle proceeding through the intersection was taken at 11:25 AM (as indicated in...