Search found 2654 matches

Congrats on the charge being withdrawn. The issue with insurance isn't so much disclosure of the evidence, but the rules they use to determine who is at fault. Since the original police report states that your son was backing up (at least that's what I'd assume), they're going to continue relying upon that. They use Fault Determination Rules to ...

Congratulations. Nice! And thank you for posting the follow-up.

The officer told my son (and i was there) that although he doesn't want to charge him, Ministry rules say that he must charge someone for it and he believes my son should get the ticket.

Well, as Simon says, that's wrong...

Make sure all of the witnesses you have are present for court. The other driver should have been charged with Careless ...

KELCRAW wrote:I would prefer to do this without hiring anyone, since I really feel I havent done anything wrong.

Are you assuming that the only time you should hire someone is IF you've done something wrong?

If he hasn't received disclosure by the day of trial, he should notify the JP that he made an application for disclosure, but didn't get it. Bring proof that he made an attempt to get it. They should then adjourn to a later date. If your son made a reasonable attempt to obtain disclosure (sounds like he did make it early), then they should charge ...

Ticket should say section 130, but if the description of the offence is correct (ie "Careless Driving") it is often not enough to get it tossed. If the section referred to might confuse the defendant about what he/she is charged with, then it usually is enough to get it tossed... For example, the officer writes "Driver fail to wear seat belt" but ...

Can't think of any significant cases where notes are disqualified. Periodically, a paralegal, traffic lawyer or someone who's been doing their homework stands up and asks an officer "do you have an independent recollection?" and the officer says "no." Then the defendant/representative asks for the notes to be excluded. With very few exceptions ...

I believe double the limit is automatic careless.

No, it isn't.

Because of my increased speed upon cutting into lane, i was forced to take a right turn at a speed which would make my tires skid. During the ordeal when i was making this right turn, understeer was imminent and my car wobbled a bit.

That would've been the reason for the ...

Did you cause other drivers to brake violently, spin out of control, hit other objects or anything like that? If not - Careless Driving is the WRONG CHARGE.

Oh and there are some court cases you may find useful in this:

R. v. Richards, 2009

Long story short: Ran a red light, charged with careless driving. Charge tossed - red light running is ...

Don't know if the letter would've covered it, but this sounds pretty similar to the Ontario process where, if you accumulate enough demerit points within two years, they call you in for an interview. Based on the interview, they decide whether or not to suspend your licence. Usually, if you show remorse and promise them that you will drive in a law ...

See if you can get this pled down to something less onerous.

On a separate note... G1? Where was your "foreign" driver's licence from?

Get a paralegal with this one. First of all, if your mother testifies that she was driving and not you, and you do the same - that should be it. The officer cannot testify who was driving because he did not witness the infraction and he's not a traffic reconstruction expert. A paralegal or lawyer would rip the truck driver's testimony apart on the ...

Sona wrote:I reminded her of R v. Morin (8-10 month delay). She said that is being appealed right now.

LOL, appealed. To where? As Simon says... it's the Supreme Court of Canada that decided it. Nice try on her part with the bluff, though.

The guy in the Acura in the "staged car accident" has been getting continuous death threats, and people have stuck threatening posters and flyers all over his neighbourhood and on his home.

Going to jail? For the first offence? While I'm usually not too sympathetic about driving suspended, this seems a bit excessive. People who rack up enough serious convictions to get their licence suspended, and then get caught driving suspended, are the ones who should be facing incarceration. But, that's not much help to you.

Who told you that ...

Agree with Decatur. While a lot of people get bent around the axle about speed, the reality is that "going too fast" is subjective. She'd need a collision reconstructionist to prove that you were, indeed, going too fast in some sort of quantifiable way. Sounds like she's 100% at fault.

Well from the photograph it looks like the Subaru is at fault and should've been charged with something. You can't rip down a turning lane to pass stopped traffic, just like you said.

It used to be that police had no way of knowing if the vehicle was insured or not, except for the presentation of the slip. As Stanton says, they are in the process of creating the centralized database and giving all police access to it (should've been done a LONG time ago). In a lot of US states, police can run the licence plate # and it will tell ...

A summons cannot be avoided. They don't go away or expire. They'll find you sooner or later.

Contact the police, get the summons, and get proof that the vehicle was insured under someone else's name - and that the insurance was valid at the time. You'll have to show that to the Prosecutor in order for them to withdraw the charge.

$2500 fine and a 30 day suspension sounds fairly "normal" for this sort of offence.

Also in many other countries, .05 is what will lead to criminal sanctions. Since the provinces couldn't change the Criminal Code, they simply put in administrative penalties for .05. British Columbia went too far with their escalating sanctions, and part of their law got struck down by the courts.

Sounds, indeed, like the officer knocked the charge down to Disobey Lane Light instead of Red Light - Fail To Stop.

1. You don't need to prove the witness was at the scene if he testifies. The accident report is not proof of his presence - his testimony is.
2. Your testimony plus that of the witness. You then would point out that you were confronted with the unexpected, illegal actions of a motorist driving where he wasn't supposed to. That might help you with ...

Now since I caused the accident, this 'friend' is urging that I pay.

It's his vehicle. It's his responsibility to ensure that the vehicle has insurance. I'm going to guess that he was driving the vehicle without insurance and would continue to do so. The only way I'd fault you is if he said "oh by the way it doesn't have insurance" before you ...

Section 62 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act: The lights facing to the front have to be amber or white only.

Did they actually CANCEL your licence (third occurrence resulting in a suspension) or did it just expire?

If that's the case, you have to serve the full waiting periods according to MTO. But, visit a DriveTest centre and see what they say.

matt123 wrote:Compared to Detroit Windsor is a jewel.

Lived in both places... and that's an understatement.

"manwithaplan" pretty much covered everything I was going to say before I could jump in.

I also disagree with your statement that drivers in Toronto love to drive fast, I've found the opposite to be true, the majority of people on the GTA's express ways and city streets seem content to dawdle along 10-20 km/h below the speed limit.


Well ...

If speed governors aren't the answer to slow vehicles down WHAT IS?


Why do we need to slow everyone down?

Speed governors would only have an effect on our fastest roads, which are already our safest. Our fatality rate is falling and it continues to fall. Other countries are raising their freeway/motorway limits and seeing their fatalities and ...

This has nothing to do with traffic or driving.

Thread locked.