Ontario Highway Traffic Act

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?