Ontario Highway Traffic Act

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.