Search found 1065 matches

I think the reason traffic courts do things this way (ask for you phone number, want to call you instead of write, won't mail anything out) is because if they didn't do it that way, they simply wouldn't be able to handle the volume of requests that they get for disclosure. I don't think they are violating your right to disclosure by requesting that ...

Ok, you asked for it, so here it is. Note where it says certificate of offence and offence notice and don't get them confused.

The Law

Reg 950 s. 1(2) says certificate of offence for red light proceedings shall be in Form 2

This is revoked on the day s. 7(4) of Schedule 1 of the Good Government Act comes into force, which is March 1, 2012

Reg ...

There are no points associated with a G2 alcohol violation.

The officer has no obligation to try to prevent you from making the turn. That is not the kind of thing that's contemplated by s. 41(1)(b) of the PSA.

With respect to demerit points, they cannot be reduced. They administratively accompany the offence if you are convicted.

A friend told me something about paralegals submitting some form at the last minute - involving a change of date or rushed date, and that it ALWAYS results in the ticket being dismissed because the court will never both to accommodate such a request for a traffic ticket...

Myth. If the court won't accommodate a request for adjournment then you ...

Not likely

killeruman wrote:there were multiple cars going fast and i was in the middle of the pack; yet i was the only on pulled over.

Sometimes it's just the luck of the draw. The fact that there were others going as fast is essentially irrelevant.

Provincial Offences Act s. 59:

Relief against minimum fine

(2) Although the provision that creates the penalty for an offence prescribes a minimum fine, where in the opinion of the court exceptional circumstances exist so that to impose the minimum fine would be unduly oppressive or otherwise not in the interests of justice, the court may impose ...

If you attend court on a charge like fail to drive in marked lane, you can not be found guilty of careless. It is not an included offence. In theory the prosecution could drop the fail to drive in marked lane and lay a summons for careless instead (but that would have to be before the trial actually starts). In my experience they don't usually do ...

Summonses can turn into warrants if the officer is not able to serve it.

He may mean that the radar registered you going at 156 but he locked it at 153. Just a thought...

Driving suspended is under s. 53 of the Highway Traffic Act, therefore it is a provincial offence, not a criminal offence.

s. 53 says that the penalty for a first offence is between $1000 and $5000 or a term of imprisonment for 6 months or both. However, the judge does have the discretion to reduce the fine below the statutory minimum.

teeekay wrote:(3.1), (4) Repealed: 2006, c. 32, Sched. D, s. 4 (5).

This does mean that (3.1) was repealed in 2006

I've seen partial statements go in on a voir dire before. I think what they usually try to prevent is not incomplete conversations but conversations that aren't written down verbatim. For example, a couple verbatim sentences are more likely to go in than the officer "summarizing" what the defendant said without having the exact words noted down.

The Supreme Court case of Stinchcombe is where it says that the crown does not have a duty to disclose until the defence requests disclosure.

If you request disclosure on the trial date there would likely be an adjournment to allow for you to receive disclosure, but I don't think the JP would be happy that you waited until then.

Whether video evidence is destroyed because it's only retained for a certain amount of time or it's destroyed intentionally, the remedy is usually to make a lost evidence application (known as a Carosella application) and then ask for a stay or some other remedy that is within the jurisdiction of the presiding judge to grant. I'm not commenting on ...

I've never heard of someone getting compensated for attending court to answer a charge against them just because it wasn't successful. I don't think that is in the power of the Justice of the Peace to grant even if they wanted to.

What you're suggesting is that we recognize that people routinely break the law and we should write another law to accommodate that. I disagree. If you want change, I think we should either raise the speed limit to accommodate the faster drivers and leave the section regarding left lane use as is, or we should start enforcing the speed limit in the ...

I've never heard of a case being withdrawn because it is causing a financial hardship on the accused person.

The M2 restrictions should only apply if you are using the M2 licence, which you aren't when you're driving a car.

Option 2 allows you to request a lighter monetary sentence from the court. There is nothing they can do about the points.

If you select Option 3 you will be entitled to a trial, at which they will likely present the video evidence ...

I'd say less than one minute. There's not much to do on a Genesis radar - it's all internal testing, which takes maybe 20 seconds. Then I think all you have to do is an area scan for interference. I don't think there's anything else the manufacturer recommends, but I stand to be corrected.

With 2 vehicles side by side, assuming they are the same ...

If the officer did decide to lay a charge because nobody came and showed him that it was fixed, he'd have a hard time getting a conviction on it because how will he prove who was driving at the time of the offence if he didn't obtain any identification from you, the driver. He will know the registered owner by running the plate, but there's no ...

If you are traveling the speed limit, say 100 km/hr in the left lane on the highway, I don't think the HTA contemplates that you should move over for someone who wants to break the law by going faster. As you said, I think this section only applies if someone is going particularly slower than the speed limit - as it should.

Appealing a conviction that is 19 months old will generally be difficult, of course your actual likelihood of success is always face and case specific.

Out of curiosity, what is the section number for that charge? I've never even heard of it.

I would just disagree with #4. If the right criteria are met you can certainly appeal or reopen your case.

Normally you argue the 11(b) before entering a plea and if you are not successful then you have your trial.

Very well done. You dealt well with what is a common problem in both provincial offences and criminal courts all across the province where underfunding of the criminal justice system coerces people into pleading guilty just to save the court and prosecutors the time and effort.

I think nobody has answered because you just asked a whole bunch of basic questions that are answered throughout this forum. Please feel free to repost if you have any specific questions.

A stay is usually only granted where a lesser remedy (such as an adjournment) cannot remedy the situation. If you are having issues with disclosure, an adjournment can likely remedy that. I do not think the fact that you have had to attend 3 times warrants a stay either. That is part of the process.

Even if you are denied a particular piece of ...