Ontario Highway Traffic Act

I believe the radar reading and manual would help me navigate these waters...sound on-point?


The manual could help you construct a defence. For example, in the officer's notes, if he says he "tested radar in accordance with manufacturer's specs," the manual would spell out how to do this. You could then ask, at trial, how he tested it, and ...

How did you send the disclosure request (fax, registered mail...)?

If you have proof of the two requests, you can try to file for a stay, but I'm not really sure it will work. At the very least, it should result in an adjournment so that the material can be received. It may also just spook the Prosecutor into offering a better deal. What did you ...

+1

People play these stupid games, such as "I ran the red light, but it's your fault," or "your vehicle was parked, so it's your fault," or "you should have known I wasn't going to yield, so it's your fault." Blah blah blah. What I'd do is let the guy know that he can be charged with fail to remain, so if he wants to play games, you'll just get ...

I'd suggest fixing the problem, take photographs, show that the problem has been corrected, and see what they do about it. They may offer a lesser charge, or they might withdraw it, but I don't really want to promise anything. This particular charge is laughably easy to prove.

Simon Borys wrote:This is why I'm a big fan of educating people and why I take the time to share my knowledge and experience on this forum, because justice suffers when people aren't educated about the law and their rights.

Education is the pillar of democracy. Without it, the system is doomed to fail.

I'd say it's worth fighting. You can at least plea-bargain it down. At the end of the day, the worst-case scenario is you get convicted of the original charge (that is, if they don't accept a plea-bargain).

Plea-bargaining means you choose option 3, and before the trial begins, the Prosecutor will probably offer you a deal. You don't plead guilty ...

For a speeding case, you are entitled to:

- Officer's notes (typed ONLY if they are not legible)
- Radar/lidar manual

That's it. That is what the courts consider to be sufficient to make a full answer and defence to the charge. Let's see... case law related to that...

City of Thunder Bay v. Millar
R. v. Lorna Bourget
R. v. Oosterman, 1998 ...

Introducing AMPs would be a great idea, from what I see. There are so many issues which should be dealt with in an administrative manner instead of the court system.

Keeping a good part of the HTA under the court system is probably a good idea, though. I think the state of New York handles a large number of its traffic tickets as administrative ...

Ultimately, in a you-said/I-said situation, it's difficult. A trip to small claims court may be required, unfortunately, particularly if the damage amount is below your deductible. Get a copy of the report you filed with the Collision Reporting Centre. You may need that, plus you may need to get in touch with the police and your insurance company ...

It is four demerit points. Basically, if you move out of your parents' home to go to university and they remove you as a "secondary" driver, there probably wouldn't be an effect on the insurance. However, any insurance you are "attached" to would most likely be affected by this ticket, if you are convicted.

If you pick option 3 and set a trial ...

Haven't heard from ticketcombat in almost a year...

LeafsChopper wrote:if he was only 1 car length behind you when you first heard him then i wouldn't consider his pipes loud, lol....

"Loud" is relative, after all...

I'd probably go to court and try to get it re-opened. If you're concerned about the technical aspects of it, consulting a paralegal may be worthwhile.

Start by calling them, though, and find out what happened. Four months seems unusually fast for a court date in Scarborough, maybe there was an administrative error (which would be no surprise).

The ticket doesn't have to specify which sign was disobeyed, just the location where the alleged offence occurred... so at an intersection with multiple signs, it could be very ambiguous. As Simon Borys says, disclosure should reveal more...

Biron: That's an interesting development... Keep me posted...

mischief: Sorry it didn't work out for you, although a lesser charge is still better than the original charge, IMO...