Search found 1065 matches

Not all of the requirements you've cited apply right at the 4500 kg cut off though. For example, you don't need a name on the side of the vehicle unless you're registered for or actually weight 8182 kg or more.

There are nuances to the CMV requirements that really do lend this area well to receiving professional assistance if you are in this ...

One of the elements of the offence for using cell phone (as for any other moving or non-moving violation) is that the defending was driving a "motor vehicle" as defined in s. 1 of the Highway Traffic Act. The officer's mis-identification or imprecise identification (i.e. "grey car") of the motor vehicle may go to the weight of the officer's ...

As a matter of law you cannot be convicted simply for missing an early resolution meeting.

Sure you can. Provincial Offences Act s. 9. It means you're deemed not to dispute the charge. For failing to attend the meeting our ticket will likely be placed into a pile to be brought into court sometime in the near future for a conviction in abstential ...

R v Grech-Vennare, 2013 ONCJ 278

http://canlii.ca/en/on/oncj/doc/2013/20 ... cj278.html

In 2008 the Court of Appeal said that the presumption was of strict liability for HTA offences (Brampton v Kanda), however that is only the starting point. Many offences have been addressed in specific cases both before and after Kanda. You'd have to do your research.

Ambiguous signage might form part of a due diligence defence if the offence is one of strict liability.

Is there a way to find out who? Through disclosure maybe? Don't we have the right to challenge our accuser?

We don't have a strict right to face our accuser like the do in the US based on the confrontation clause of the 6th amendment. What we have is a right, through disclosure which is mandated by s. 7 of the Charter, to see all the evidence ...

There is an ongoing challenge to s. 68.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, which mandates speed limiting devices for commercial motor vehicles. It will be heard soon by the Ontario Court of Justice, sitting as an appeal court from the decision of the justice of the peace who ruled the legislation unconstitutional.

There was a preliminary set of ...

That would make much more sense. I know x-copper is a reputable organization that's been around for a while. I would be surprised if they were acting outside of their scope of practice as paralegals.

What would be the purpose of failing to accept the disclosure? You requested it...presumably you want/need it... Wouldn't that just mean you get it later? To what end?

I feel obligated to point out that paralegals aren't allowed to represent someone on an impaired or over 80 charge. You can read here on the Law Society of Upper Canada website that their practice is restricted to offences for which the maximum penalty is 6 months in jail (a regular summary conviction offence): http://www.lsuc.on.ca/with.aspx?id ...

Not just CAN withdraw a charge, but MUST if there is no reasonable prospect of conviction - per the Crown Policy Manual. To pursue a conviction where there is no reasonable prospect of conviction (because the facts don't support it) would be unethical. That being said, it may well be that the prosecutor did feel there was a reasonable prospect of ...

You should be clear about whether your case is being "reopened" or "appealed". Reopenings are governed by s. 11 of the POA. They are available only within 15 days of the conviction. Outside that time frame you would normally be talking about a full appeal, which is governed by Part VII of the POA (though possibly the court is reopening your case ...

If you are considering filling an 11(b) motion you need to divide up all the time periods (between each appearance or event) and think about whether they are attributable to normal intake, crown delay, institutional delay, or defence delay. It's only where the crown and institutional delay is unacceptably long that you are potentially eligible for ...

Option 2 is Plea of Guilty- Submissions to Penalty. From what I understand, it means that the payable fine can be decreased from $220. However, would this mean that my demerit points/insurance would be still the same as if I chose option 1? My main concern is to not get destroyed by my insurance company for like 5 years.

The points go ...

Yes, absolutely! I certainly didn't mean to suggest he should actually just show up in court and say nothing and hope that the crown can't prove it. I was speaking more about the principle behind it. There are many good impaired driving lawyers who are well versed in the operation of the intoxilyzer machine and the proper procedures for obtaining a ...

You've already admitted to consuming alcohol in this post so what are you going to say in court. Remember you're not supposed to lie.

He doesn't have to say anything in court. He has no burden of proof. The crown has the burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He's entitled to sit there and say nothing and be acquitted if the ...

Well Im not Simon, but I think I can answer your question.

For most police services, HTA matters are always scheduled on the officers regular working days. Courts are provided with a copy of the officers schedule (including vacation days) so that they know when to book matters. Matters can be delayed or rescheduled, but the Court will typically ...

Prejudice is an important part of an 11(b) motion. Prejudice can be inferred from the mere passage of time, but if you don't make your desire for the earliest possible trial date known, then it can be harder to establish prejudice. In a situation like this, you could make your desire for an earlier trial date known by attending and opposing the ...

Yes, you're right. Now I remember reading this case earlier this year. Thanks!

Actually, the requirement to report accidents applies everywhere, even on private property. Recent case law (R v. Hajivasilis) has clarified this. If the accident results in any injuries and/or $1,000+ damage (vehicles and property included), you must report that accident.

I think Hajivasilis actually stands for the opposite proposition. In that ...

An offence that carries a possibility of jail cannot be absolute liability. See BC Motor Vehicle Reference, 1985, Supreme Court of Canada. You should be able to find it on CanLII.

You can ask the officer any questions that are material and relevant to the issues being tried. If you intend to contradict the officer later about something they said in their examination in chief, you MUST question them about it. This is known as the Rule in Brown V Dunn. What you can't do is lead evidence of your own during the cross examination ...

An affidavit is just your statement as to what you claim happened, notarized (and dated) by a notary public. The benefits of an affidavit are 2 fold: 1) since they are dated, they prevent the argument that you just made your statement up recently and 2) they are under oath, so they're supposed to bind your conscience and prevent you from lying. The ...

Yes, typically this would be by affidavit evidence. It could also be by oral testimony.

If this offence is one of absolute liability then all that the prosecution needs to do is establish that you did it. Motives are reasons are irrelevant. For an absolute liability offence, a video of you doing it (regardless of the reasons) would not help.

If this offence is one of strict liability, then the prosecution needs to establish that you ...

An affidavit doesn't really offer anything beyond what proof you can provide with a fax confirmation receipt. If they're not going to believe you sent in your disclosure request when you produce a fax confirmation receipt, they're not going to believe you just because you swore an affidavit about it.

Greatest Canadian wrote:If you get a ticket and settle out of court by paying the ticket without proceeding to trial, no points can be added to your driving record.

Read my Dermit Point Scam thread.

Can you provide any authority for this? Because lots of people here can provide plenty of anecdotal experience that this is NOT true.

If you plead guilty with an explanation before a JP you cannot plead guilty to a different charge. The JP has no jurisdiction in that case to change the offence to something else. You can only make submissions about sentence (fine amount). If you have a resolution meeting with the prosecutor, you can talk about a lesser charge or a lesser fine ...

If you pleaded guilty what is it exactly that you want to appeal? The case was disposed of by way of a plea so that's the decision you would have to have over turned. A guilty plea can be revoked, but it is not easy to do. That's probably something that would be good to have a lawyer or paralegal for.