Ontario Highway Traffic Act

Go to the local court office (the criminal court office, not the POA court), and go to the Registrar's/Clerk's office ... they will be able to tell you whether you can appeal or not. It's not as though any JP made a decision on the case, a decision that you could appeal from. Your son made an out-of-court payment, which usually means that from the ...

It's not as hard as you'd think. If you've got a bird's eye view, you've got an unobstructed sightline as opposed to being blocked by vehicles/buildings/vegetation, being at an odd angle, etc., while on the ground. 1000' is less than a quarter of a mile. That's pretty close. Even at well over 3000' above ground, you can tell if someone is ...

Bluegirl, no doubt Im too late with this, but here goes:

As Radar pointed out, you will be arraigned first, you will plead "not guilty", then the trial will begin. Prosecutor is first up with their witnesses. You could ask for an exclusion order, so that the prosecutions witnesses are kept outside of the courtroom until it is their turn to testify ...

USA stuff = N/A, completely different court system, laws, procedures etc.
Completely different?! You are aware that our courts, including our Supreme Court, will often look to judgements from American courts in guiding them in areas where Canadian common law is murky? R. v. Askov is a prime example. That was and remains a most crucial judgement ...

It is all common/routine procedure for trials. We leave the 2nd officer in the hallway.

YES, the officer on the ground could say he observed the vehicle following too close - the vehicle could still be following too close when the ground unit spotted the vehicle
YES - the officer on the ground does say the "air unit told him the vehicle was ...

One would think it would be easier to beat. The officer in the plane has to be at the trial to give evidence. The officer on the ground cannot say "I observed you following too close" because he in fact didnt observe that. He cant say "the aircraft told me that they observed you following too close" at trial, because thats hearsay evidence (you ...

Did the prosecutor say "your uncle doesn't need to show up" without prompting, or after you asked? If they did it out of the blue, that sounds mighty suspicious, though as you said, there were errors on the ticket, and if he didn't show, it should go to a s.9.1 review on which it should be quashed. Plus you have the voicemail just in case any ...

Or this:

<u>Keeping a Proper Lookout</u>

The last three paragraphs are quite topical:

<i>In Dalby v Reece, Justice Oliver of the British Columbia Supreme Court heard of a 2 a.m. motor vehicle accident. At issue was a fatal multiple vehicle accident on a busy international highway. As Dalby approached, his gaze was diverted to one of the ...

I dont believe the author of that post was a lawyer or paralegal advertising his services, but whatever.

Perhaps this summary will meet with wide approval?

Duhaime.org

This sums up the caselaw around Careless Driving quite nicely:

http://dynamiclawyers.com/DL_blog/careless-driving/28/

FyreStorm, do you have any research showing the percentage of Careless Driving charges in any given year in Ontario that result in convictions? If so, please post it here, 'cos Id love to see it. From only anecdotal evidence, I ...

Careless is an even harder offence to prove for the prosecution, as it involves mens rea on top of the actus reus needed to convict for a FTC.

Said another way, if you cant successfully prosecute for FTC, youll never win a Careless Driving prosecution.

I dont know the whole story from Bluegirl … the deer was hit by the southbound vehicle and ...

Just read the Toronto v. Baillie decision. It's unfortunate, as I think the JP's erred here. The test for FTC is not stopping distances in case of a stopped vehicle in front of you. It's the distances needed to stop when "following" another car (i.e. the other car is also moving). As JP Quon says in his judgment, you would need to be behind any car ...

Yes, an accident doesn't prove Following Too Close (FTC) by itself. The relevant caselaw is in that Haddad decision, specifically:

Regina v. Borg, [2005] O.J. No. 1823 (Ont. C.J.);
Regina v. Ouseley, [1973] 1 O.R. 729 (Ont. C.A.);
Both of those are higher court decisions, so the JP is bound by them (they will many times disagree with previous ...

Justice Libman is one of the "heavies" of the Ontario Court of Justice, for sure. The guy literally wrote the book on how to adjudicate Provincial Offences trials in Ontario. Much of the caselaw leading up to London v. Young et al, started with his R. v. Khoshael decision in 2001.

Well played Off_Camber, well played!

Did you go to any website to tell you in what form a s.135 appeal should be? If so, could you please send it on (or others if they know)?

I think you mean Justice Rick N. Libman . I always like to check the list of judges/JP's, so I know which one I get. There's plenty at Old City Hall, not as many in my neck ...