Search found 2654 matches

Duplicate post from under "Improper turn." Thread locked. Please keep to one thread for the same ticket.

Lady wrote:how many year is this (this law) in effect

Since 2004.

Prior to that, the driver had to be positively identified for any charge to be laid. Now, if the driver can't be identified, a ticket is still sent to the vehicle's owner - if they get the licence plate.

hwybear wrote:and when you thought it couldn't get worse

I may as well go kick myself in the nuts. We are all - severely - doomed.

Section 175 of the Highway Traffic Act dealing with offences against school buses:

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic40.html

Unless the school bus driver identified the offending driver, the charge is laid against the vehicle's owner. Here is the demerit points table:

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/demerit-points.php

Police ...

Ohio has long been the US state with the heaviest traffic enforcement. The old joke was that if you drop a coin in Ohio, it will hit three State Troopers before it reaches the ground. They will stop - and ticket - for as little as 3 MPH over the limit. So, given their anti-speed tendencies, I figured they'd probably be the first ones to impose ...

Nothing requires slow acceleration, but squealing tires is unnecessary noise.

I have to agree with beleafer81.

Like, hello?? The second the fake cop refused to produce a badge or warrant card, I would've told her that impersonating a peace officer is a serious criminal offence, and excuse me while I call the REAL police. (After taking her photograph with my BlackBerry.) And as for demanding payment on the spot... in cash ...

I can guarantee that the OPP will show up for this trial, given the area. As for the other stuff, there is definitely a risk that the speed would be amended up to 136 from 129, but I can't say with any certainty how much that risk would be. Some Prosecutors make it a matter of routine, and I am told that the one in the Chatham area is one who does ...

Some others (and, including the points you brought up, they cover a lot of territory if you know where to dig):

- Offence occurred on a highway
- Officer visually estimated speed of vehicle
- Officer visually identified vehicle as speeding PRIOR to using device to confirm same ("tracking history")
- Device properly used by officer to obtain speed ...

Years ago when I was living in Ottawa, I got charged with exactly this offence. Zero demerit points, nothing on your driver record, no insurance increase... as diehard said. I'd suggest paying it.

Following Ontario's lead... :roll:

The province of British Columbia just unveiled stunt driving laws that, in some respects, make ours look relaxed. :shock: Set to take effect on September 20, anyone in BC going 40 km/h or more over the speed limit will face an immediate, 7-day impoundment of their vehicle for the first offence... but this is the ...

just wondering if paying a paralegal 350 compared to 110 fine and 4 points is what l should do,

There's also the potential insurance increase to consider. Over a three-year period, that could be over $1000, depending on who your provider is. Some of them might let it go, others will charge you through the nose. So it's more like $350 vs. $1110 ...

With no collision, this charge is extremely hard to prove. My suggestion is to pick option 3 (trial) and go from there, for starters.

Oh... my... God.

Just when I thought gov't officials couldn't possibly come up with dumber ideas than some of the ones we already have in place, this happens.

that speed bump might work the wrong way....after a few times the people will slow down, but the drivers become to accustom to that and when a real child runs out....just keep on driving ...

This province is getting scary insane.

No, it's not. Try, for example, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Burma, etc. THOSE are scary-insane. I do have issues with lots of things that the government has done, but, on a relative scale, it's not that bad.

As for the original post, if the kid does not want to be searched, he does not have to ...

With $12 500 on the line... I'd suggest seeking some sort of professional help (paralegal, lawyer). Second offence is going to be pretty hard to get a reduction on.

I agree with admin... but I'm having a bit of trouble following the scenario here.

You said that:

last year I had received a large traffic ticket

but...

...ended up paying the whole ticket amount

Ok... so what it sounds like is you lost in court... and then...

they are now threatening have the traffic ticket reinstated

Now I'm not ...

Will the 3 demerit points show up on my insurance or not?


The offence itself is what insurance companies are concerned about. Demerit points are an internal MTO administrative thing and the insurance companies really don't care too much about them, unless they result in a licence suspension. Any convictions (and points, for MTO) go on your ...

I remember reading somewhere that the prosecutor will attempt to talk to me both before my scheduled time, and once again when I am called on (BOTH on the day of the trial).

Depends, but for the most part, that is true. When you get to court, you will check in with the Prosecutor, and a deal will usually be offered (depending on the charge ...

Is there any way I can fight the ticket in a courthouse here?


Short answer: No.

If you can't make it to Cornwall but want to fight the ticket, or get it reduced, you can always hire a paralegal to do that for you.

The officer also told me I get 3 points taken away, how long are they gone for?


Two years. Technically, though, they aren't ...

could someone be charged at the courthouse when presenting the false insurance slip?

If you presented it in court, and they verified that it was, in fact, an invalid insurance slip (which could be done with a simple phone call), that would be perjury. That's a criminal offence and it is jail time. On top of that, if the vehicle was then driven ...

Keroba wrote:Sometimes you need to know when to fold your cards.

It's unfortunate that the JP seemed to be rather unwilling to preside over a trial. I think, given the situation, you did the best thing you could under the circumstances. An appeals process would've been like pulling teeth.

Option 3. That is the only way you can plea-bargain to a lesser charge without demerit points, or be found not guilty, etc.

Option 2 is where you plead guilty to the offence as charged, but try to offer an explanation. The Justice of the Peace is then left to decide whether or not to reduce the fine only, in this case. The courts do not have ...

PaulinCanada wrote:Anyone have any suggestions, they had to do with disclosure

Disclosure of what? Radar manual? Officer's notes? Photographic/video evidence??

Wait, $380 fine? Did he write that in the total payable and/or set fine box?

He charged you with failing to stop for an amber light. There are a couple of ways to fight this. Basically, he initially accused you of running a red. If he testifies to that in court, you can make a motion of non-suit. Running a red light is not included in the offence ...

I agree, it does not appear like a "fail to stop." Anyway, it would have been pretty obvious within a couple of minutes if you'd really failed to stop: Odot would've pulled you over.

Nice!

Good to see that the trend among JPs these days is to thoroughly examine the ticket for fatal errors and quash as necessary.

Also, there is nothing wrong with anybody video taping you without your knowledge in this situation.

+1

You're in a public place. It is reasonable to think that you may be videotaped or photographed at some point, with or without your knowledge. Happens every time you walk into a bank, gas station, grocery store, airport, or even drive through ...

She stayed at the scence for half an hour and when she left, was charged 10 minutes later

This doesn't sound as bad as it could have been. It's not like she hit the sign pole, kept driving and was charged two weeks later. Did she call the police from the scene of the collision?

I think a paralegal would have an opportunity to do a few things ...

If the ticket is not paid, ANY plate on a vehicle that she owns will not be renewable. It is not specific to the plate. It is specific to the plate's owner.

I'd either make a deal to pay one of the tickets in exchange for dropping the other, or try to fight them... particularly if there was no snow to be removed from that street...