Search found 2654 matches

highwaystar wrote:You simply need to rely upon the court decision of R. v. Isik. The court held that the sticker portion on the plate is mandatory, whereas the sticker portion on the permit is discretionary. So, if you had your validation sticker on the plate, then that's all that is absolutely necessary.

That's some nice case law there.

Now that we all agree that the ticket has a fatal flaw, the pic was deleted.

I think you're in luck.

I requested disclosure about half a year ago as the notes were not at my meeting with the prosecutor, now I am going to trial without notes as they still do not have a brief, in two weeks and feel very unprepared, but innocent.

So if I understand this correctly... they still haven't given you the officer's notes and a copy of the collision ...

Since both of them were re-opened, if nothing else, you could plea bargain to drop one in exchange for pleading guilty to the other. Or, same thing, try explaining to the Prosecutor and see what they do.

Do NOT give your side of the story. You have the right to NOT testify against yourself. If you take the witness stand, then you must truthfully answer any questions you are asked. But you have the right to NOT take the witness stand and therefore not have to answer any questions. Don't fall for the prosecutions trick where they will say something ...

1. Does the prosecutor take into consideration someone's driving record during discussions? Because I am hoping to maybe plead to a lesser charge.


Often they do. However, your record is pretty good. So that means...

2. Do prosecutors normally strike a deal?


In this case, probably. You'll likely be offered something like "fail to turn left ...

I suppose you could try to appeal the decision, but that's complicated. This is a tough one. I'll leave that to other forum members to suggest what to do.

The "Drive Motor Vehicle - no currently validated permit" is a tough one to beat. For the "Fail to surrender insurance card," you can try meeting with the Prosecutor and explaining your ...

I'll just post the key stuff right here:

Conclusion



While the routine check is an arbitrary detention in violation of s. 9 of the Charter, the infringement is one that is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. As a result, s. 189a(1) of the Highway Traffic Act is a valid and constitutional legislative ...

That looks like a "c" to me. I'd call it a fatal error. I'd follow iFly55's advice.

Duplicate topic. Please stay on your original thread.

Now that the post Decatur and argyll are referring to has been dealt with...

On his disclosure he notes that he was traveling at 92 km per hour in a posted 80km zone, but he was directly behind another vehicle, so either his notes are incorrect or the car in front of him was speeding as well. Something is not right here as I was not speeding 29 ...

Thanks, iFly. Seems reasonable, hopefully we'll get some clarification from the appeals courts soon.

Keep the dashcam video handy. If you do get charged, showing the video to the Prosecutor should get it dropped right away.

Nice diagram...

You do have to be on the same roadway. Since you didn't pass the school bus, no offence was committed. If it was a four-way stop and you had yielded to all pedestrians (which it sounds like you did), I don't see what the problem was. Maybe there was something else he was honking at...? Or it could just be he got some weird idea in ...

Interesting... what else was in the ruling?

Before we close this post, I would like to understand one thing, can anyone with 100% certainty tell me if the owner of a vehicle can be charged based on a citizen's report?

An owner can be charged for failing to stop for a school bus based on your report, yes. As I mentioned earlier, some police services want the school bus driver to be the one ...

Show up on your court date and check in with the Prosecutor. Usually, the Prosecutor will ask if you would like to "resolve" the charge ahead of time. At that point, the negotiation begins. Let the Prosecutor make the offer. You can counter-offer with one of the two I mentioned above.

Can't condone that either. Consider what would've happened if the driver had swerved to avoid the rake, or blown a tire and lost control at 100 km/h on a residential street when...

everyone was outside as it was one of the first nice days of the year.

The only thing worse than a driver who is going too fast for the conditions... is a driver who ...

If the officer doesn't show up, they usually do withdraw the charge. The disclosure looks pretty solid so my recommendation would be a plea-bargain. I don't think "defence of necessity" applies in this case, because they will simply say that you were either driving too fast for the conditions, or were braking too late, and the JP will convict ...

The issue I have is that, although I have personally reported the licence plate of driver who failed to stop for a school bus with the lights flashing, the police refused to do anything about it, despite my repeated follow-ups and making it clear that I would be at the court to testify.
Furthermore this driver failed to stop at the stop sign, so ...

They have an agreement with the feds to collect unpaid NB provincial fines. Anyone who files a Canadian income tax return who has outstanding fines in NB will get it deducted automatically. If you don't have a Canadian income tax return, my understanding is that NB will sic a collection agency in your country of residence on you.

They're much ...

What you did was perfectly legal and reasonable. The provision you're referring to is section 170 of the HTA. Take a look at it here:

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic46.html

You'll note that provision doesn't apply within a municipality or built-up area. They can erect signs that say "No stopping" or "No parking," but if there's a ...

I would hope so, obviously no guarantees. However, HTA 7 (1)(a) refers to validated permit, which you had. He charged you under the wrong section. If he charged you under section 7 (5), then you'd have no recourse because a full true copy wasn't carried.

SO does this mean that I would receive a ticket in the mail, for 490$ or whatever the fine is, but NO demerit points, NO record on my licence and NO insurance penalties? Since they can only charge me as the owner and not the driver?

Correct.

Just to ask: Was the bus stopped when you passed it or was it still moving?

Yes the ticket can be paid ...

hwybear wrote:Is Don Mills Rd the same as Hwy 404?

Nope. Don Mills Road is a north-south arterial, owned by the city of Toronto. The Don Valley Parkway is what the 404 becomes south of the 401.

Pretty sure Don Mills isn't a King's Highway.

I'll add, you're welcome as well. You took a civil and mature approach, so you got a civil and mature response.

The idea that early resolution is a "it can't hurt" kind of situation, came from ticket defenders telling me directly they would meet with a prosecutor to work out a deal, and that the prosecutor would have to give the opportunity to accept the original charge before the charges can be increased.


This is correct (for the most part), and works ...

What will happen is, if you get convicted, they will not change it to "stunt driving" once it shows on your Ontario abstract. It will be speeding only.

Let us know what happens.

The cop reduced your speed from stunt driving level (52 over the limit) to 15 over?!?!?!!!!!

You may want to re-consider whether you want to fight/plead here. First of all, should you go to court, the Prosecutor can (and almost certainly will) amend the speed back up to the original 52 over the limit. The R. v. Winlow ruling allows for this, and ...