Ontario Highway Traffic Act

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...