Search found 2654 matches

Well there are three ways of dealing with this:

1. Do not show up at all. A conviction may be entered in your absence, but then you could appeal based on the London v. Young case and the numerous cases that follow. This is how the court system expects you to proceed if there is a fatal error on your ticket. If you were charged with Amber Light ...

Make sure that you tell the JP that you did not receive disclosure until minutes before the trial, and therefore you cannot make full answer and defence to the charge without a proper review of the evidence... kinda what Reflections was saying...

Adjourned should be worst-case scenario.

That's tampering with evidence.

I agree. The ticket is not complete and regular on its face. You were charged with Amber Light - Fail to Stop, which is HTA 144 (15). Red Light - Fail to Stop is 144 (18 ). The fine amount is incorrect for the charge that was described.

Well... he does have the discretion to give you a reduced CHARGE, but not a reduced fine on the charge itself...

Actually I think their response is pretty good. They've given you the opportunity to explain why you need the material. I think they're doing their due diligence.

As for the requested material, here's my opinion:

- Calibration Certificate: Not required. Lots of case law and precedent has settled this. Calibration certificate does not prove the ...

The trial date is mandatory. I'm not too familiar with Cornwall but I'd think that any First Attendance meeting would be optional, unless there was some sort of summons given to you. I could be wrong though...

If you were driving at the "default speed limit" then yes you could use this as a defence, as Stanton and hwybear said.

For example... if you were doing 50 in a 30 zone in a built-up area, and the sign did not meet O.Reg specifications, then the "default" limit of 50 takes over and you'd probably be found not guilty...

nor can a speedometer calibrate a radar


:lol:

The only time this would be a true "calibration" is if the officer subsequently started tinkering with the radar after there was a discrepancy with the speedometer reading.

Anyway the officer's notes made it look more like a "60" instead of "50" so reasonable doubt was raised in this case in my ...

If you've already crossed the "11 month delay line" then just add the "disclosure unreadable" argument to your 11B application. Make sure you cite the recent R. ex rel City of Toronto v. Andrade decision (see our Courts and Procedures section for "11B - good news" thread) as part of the package.

I think you made a wise choice.

And get rid of the section that specifically allows passing on the right.

Yes, they should... the only exceptions being:
- Car is turning left
- Car on the left is stopped
- Traffic speed is less than 60 km/h and the pass is made with less than a 20 km/h speed differential

(Yeah I got that from Germany... sorry.)

It's not that it ain't cool ...

I'd pick them up, and still work on them just in case the 11B fails. (Given the new precedents that have come out with respect to 11Bs, I don't think you'll have an issue... but still...)

Jeez with all those signs no wonder people don't obey any of them...

Well, I'm a late in responding, but if you have a medical certificate indicating that you cannot wear a seat belt, that should be good enough for them to withdraw. Now the fact that you didn't have it when you were ticketed is a minor issue, but hopefully the Prosecutor withdrew it.

Let us know how it went...

Have all of your documentation about disclosure ready. Tell the Prosecutor you filed for disclosure but did not receive it. If they present you with the notes or whatever, tell the JP that you only just received disclosure from the Prosecutor and are not ready to proceed to trial. Tell the JP that you made several timely, appropriate requests and ...

* Cough cough*

Check this out:

http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CT ... b=CP24Home

What they'd need to do is look at "best practices" from around the world to improve driver and road safety. But that ain't cool...

I figured that if I borrowed money to afford a paralegal the judge will think I have money for a paralegal I can pay the $6000 ish fines I will be presented with.

Agree with admin.

One guy was charged with Drive No Insurance. He hired a paralegal, who pled guilty on his behalf. He explained that the man had just divorced his wife, moved out of ...

That's the one.

Well if it's been over 11 months from the date of the OFFENCE, you can certainly apply for an 11B. The rules have been clarified by appeals courts in the R. ex rel City of Toronto v. Andrade, 2011, case. (Thank you diehard!)

Please read here and follow the links posted by diehard:

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic3881.html

Just to clarify, what were you actually convicted of?

Is this BC's law where they require you to install an ignition interlock regardless of whether you are convicted or not? If so, and you were NOT convicted of anything, you do not require an ignition interlock here. If your BC licence is still valid, you should be able to get an Ontario licence ...

If there are no decimal points, and it genuinely looks like they were giving you a ticket for a set fine of $1250 and a total payable of $27 500 (holy *EDIT* that's like a speeding ticket in Switzerland), then you should be able to appeal. A paralegal or lawyer may be able to help you, but shop around. Some don't like using this "default and appeal ...

Squishy's reference to 148 (2) is this:

Vehicles or equestrians overtaken

(2) Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the overtaking vehicle or equestrian to pass.

No reference to "speed limit" in there. In ...

A couple of charges that typically this gets "pled down to" include:
- Following Too Closely, or
- Fail to Turn Left to Avoid Collision (better of the two, for you anyway)

This is much like the garbage trap they like to set up to catch people turning left at Bay and Edward in downtown Toronto between 4 and 6 PM... unfortunately they tend to stick in court...

Anyway you may be able to plea-bargain to a lesser offence in this case... that is, unless they take more than 11 months to bring the case to trial.

Well chances are, you'll get the stunt driving lowered to speeding... unless you've got an extensive record.

Yes, the officer was "technically" incorrect. The fines are $2000 to $10 000, however, in court they generally do result in $500 to $5000 for the first offence, since the JPs are given discretion to lower the fines below the minimums. You ...

This law is so dumb. There's so much room for error.

The way I see it: Any talking on a wireless communication device is needless distraction, unless it happens to be a life-threatening emergency. The law should've been written that way (NO cellphone usage, hands-free or not, emergencies excepted)... but of course that would've been too ...

Thank you for the link and the case law, diehard.

It should be speedy, however, tighten up the other end too...either respond within 15 days or be guilty.


No argument here.

However, generally speaking, case law (e.g. R. v. Rowan) specifically cited the "15 days or that's it" as the reason why the Prosecutors should have absolutely no excuse ...

Its so dangerous and people seem to not notice, or care. It blows my mind.

It is the duty of every GTA driver to cross over multiple lanes when turning. :shock:

A few weeks ago two cars were turning westbound on to Lawrence Avenue not far from where I live. One was northbound turning left, the other southbound turning right. In places where ...