Ontario Highway Traffic Act

Once you get the trial date, make a disclosure request and ask specifically for the officer's notes - typed if not legible. That's about all you should ask for in this case - none of this garbage about "witness will-say statements" and "statements made by the defendant" and "names, occupation and criminal records of people providing such ...

The radar is accurate to within +/- 0.1 km/h. However, as hwybear says, the radar cannot read 89.9 km/h, so it rounds down to 89 km/h in that case. And actually hwybear's statement about "accuracy being based on a unit of measure" comes directly from the radar manufacturer: Decatur's statement is the radar is "accurate to within +/-1 unit of ...

Soon you'll be all set to go. Once all of the fines are paid, you can then get your licence re-instated ($150 reinstatement fee). Looks like that will happen reasonably soon.

When you are in a collision with a parked car, you must find the owner of the vehicle and exchange insurance information, or at least have the police attend the scene so they can track the owner down.

This is a clear violation of a right to privacy and what makes it all the worse is that MTO would be doing it for nothing more than profit.

It is not a violation of your right to privacy. No one has a "right" to drive. The insurance companies are authorized to obtain that information under the Insurance Act. Don't want insurance companies having ...

Say for the first meeting? You could see if they offer you a reduced charge. If you want to fight this, you have three witnesses who were in your vehicle who could all testify that you did slow down and proceed with caution. The first meeting (or "First Attendance") is simply to try to resolve the issue without a trial. If a resolution is not ...

14 months should easily put you in 11B territory. Check over the success stories that we've had here, or, if the Old City Hall court system gets too complicated, you could also look at hiring a paralegal. I think you're in good shape to get this charge stayed one way or another.

FYI, although Terry v. Ohio prohibits "random stops," the Michigan State Police have acquired "data extraction devices" which can pull all kinds of data out of iPhones and some other smartphones, without the knowledge of the user, during a traffic stop.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/21/us-michigan-cellphones-idUSTRE73K5CB20110421

No. She has to swear the statement in front of the Commissioner. If she's not present, the Commissioner cannot verify that she is actually making the statement.

As for the Cosine Error, I found something interesting about the Gun that is being used. In a flyer they state that the slope, and horizontal distance and height are available with a "tilt" sensor. Could I use this as a means to say that the device should have had this sensor on due to the slope of the hwy? In terms of the means of it being used ...

Unless you've gone over 12 months since the date of the offence, probably not worth filing an 11B.

They can conduct random stops in places like Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Australia, among others. The US prohibits random stops due to the Terry v. Ohio case; the officer has to have "reasonable suspicion" that an offence has been committed or is about to be committed, however, the intepretation is extremely vast and "reasonable" seems to ...

Submit the disclosure request when you get your trial date.

What reason did they give for excluding the video evidence?

Well it sounds like you're starting off on the right track. And I'd also add that you are doing the responsible and respectable thing going about it in this manner.

Keep us posted on how it goes.