Search found 2654 matches

sidmuer wrote:actually, don't we speak to the crown before the JP begins.

You do, however Stanton is referring to the stage where you actually file the paperwork to request the trial.

You should be able to pay off your fines and get your licence reinstated. It may take time, but nothing bars you from getting it reinstated.

The judges have no authority to reinstate your "G" status. That's solely MTO.

Yeah, in this case I'd probably let it go. Not that I'm supporting any form of "hit and run," but realistically, this is WAY too late to do anything, and trying to fix this now is going to cause more problems than it will solve.

Heard through another source that it was Superior Court... but that's obviously incorrect.

Looks like you were right: If it was the Ontario Court of Justice then the decision is NOT binding.

There are no specific provincial laws about which device will be used to measure speed or won't. It's from court cases, such as R. v. Vancrey and so on. Pacing, radar, lidar, and timing between two fixed distances are all accepted methods by the courts.

The officer could've had your speed on "rearward looking radar." The only way you'll know that ...

This one is binding throughout the province. It was heard by a Superior Court Justice. The next step would be the Ontario Court of Appeal... although I think the province would be hard-pressed to prove that "briefly holding" a phone is an inherently dangerous activity. Texting, maknig a call, etc., would certainly count as dangerous but "briefly ...

I'd probably contact a paralegal and get some advice on this one.

As for swearing on the Bible, I'd contact the Ministry of Justice about that one.

It sounds like the Prosecutor and JP both accepted them as evidence because you followed the rules for submitting them, BUT whether or not the photos have any meaning is a different story...

A bit late for me to respond here... but yeah any motor vehicle brought in to Canada must meet the safety requirements. So you'll have to do get some kind of import inspection done on the vehicle where they'll either confirm that the bike meets the standards, or they'll bring it up to standards. Went through the same process in 2007 when I moved ...

Nope, you are not facing a more serious charge. A Provincial Offences Notice (traffic ticket) has to be issued fairly soon after the offence, but they've got a longer time frame for the Summons. If they can't issue the ticket soon enough, they issue a Summons.

The obscured vision might help your case, if you have a sympathetic Justice of the Peace. The photographs might help, if you are trying to argue that you took all reasonable steps, based upon your field of vision, to ensure that it was clear, and you were inching your way out. I'm not optimistic that this will be successful, but give it a shot and ...

Well, a Disobey Sign offence instead of 42 over is a good plea-bargain. I'd say you did well.

If you plead not guilty, they still have to gather evidence from the officer in order to prove the offence - so yes he'd be notified.

The odds of the officer who allegedly witnessed you weaving in and out of traffic being able to identify you as the driver are not good. He probably saw your licence plate, recorded it, and called it in.

My ...

I'd set the trial date - but don't show up. It just gives you more time to put your case together for an appeal.

Hi radar identified, can you share with us the reason why that defense didn't succeed in the occasion you witnessed? Was it that the justice wasn't satisfied that reasonably the danger was in fact eminent or real? Or did he say something about the legality of the defense?

My notes aren't the greatest but here's what I have. Essentially hk111 hit ...

FYI, I've seen that particular defence (or versions of it) attempted on more than one occasion in court. I have yet to see it succeed.

Dropped to a lower speed yes, but dropped entirely... don't bet on it. The person you want to talk to is the Prosecutor when you check in on the day of trial. Generally they'll offer you a reduced speed.

Just to add to what Stanton is saying, if your wife was driving slowly at the time and was unable to stop, then you'll want to add in things like:

"I've been driving this vehicle for quite some time, I am fully aware of its capabilities, stopping performance..."
"I was driving under the posted speed limit and saw the green light. I am fully aware ...

Court isn't the first place to go if you disagree with your insurance company. If you disagree with their findings, often they either have an Ombudsman, or you contact the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. They will tell you what to do. You'll have to see what the decision of the insurance company is first, though. After that, first step ...

For the first offence... jail time is unlikely. However, I would recommend that you seek some sort of legal representation for this offence. It's pretty serious.

Semantics.

HollowPoint wrote:The manuals dont get released....

Actually, they do.

The full manual doesn't have to be disclosed, but if relevant parts aren't given to the defendant, it is grounds for staying the charge.

Yeah, could probably get "fail to yield" or something like that... but the combination of circumstances, as Stanton pointed out, probably is what led to the original charge.

The insurance company you have sound like real @$$hats. WOW, just wow. Maybe you should change providers after this is said and done. I can't believe they yelled at you for the "high cost of towing." Crikey. Most insurance companies say "ok send us the receipt and we'll give you a cheque" and that's it. As for their preferred place, well, yeah ...

Sorry to hear about your collision. Hope you are all right. If it happened today or yesterday, you'll probably start feeling as stiff as a board right about now. (It will go away after a few days.)

Don't worry about the insurance company. They'll square themselves away after they get the police report, as the post above says. If they still want to ...

The notes on testing may or may not be required, depending on the officer's "usual practice." If the officer doesn't usually do traffic enforcement, then the testing times are required. They have to note that the device is tested before and after the stop in that case (could be beginning and end of shift). Then again, you might get a JP that's a ...

Yeah for insurance purposes the left-turner should be at fault there... but the Fault Determination Rules aren't the Highway Traffic Act so you'll still have to fight the Careless Driving charge even if insurance says you are 0% at fault. (Confused?) I would suggest getting a paralegal or lawyer for any Careless Driving charge. The consequences of ...

If you got charged with a by-law offence (or even Disobey Sign) when stunt driving could've been used... EGAD that's a lucky break!

The thing that gets me the angriest is left or right turning cars/trucks that will not go all the way into their lane.

Yep, no argument from me. You get people driving regular passenger vehicles who think that their car couldn't possibly make that tight turn across 3 lanes of traffic, so they straddle the lane so they can make sure they turn ...

You shuold be able to ask for something from Peel Police. Not sure what the outcome would be. I'm not really too familiar with this type of situation, maybe a Freedom of Information request or something could help you out.