Search found 1065 matches

The JP was right to ask you to articulate what proposition you felt your case stood for and whether it was binding on that court. It is not enough to simply hand a case to a JP and expect them to either know it or read it and interpret it in your favour.

I'm not surprised that an adjournment was granted. Stays are usually only granted where an ...

Given the severity of the fine and the various abnormal procedural issues you described, I would suggesting consulting with a paralegal or lawyer.

Careless driving is one of the most complicated traffic offences to fight. Successful defence of the charge often hinges on the legal meaning and nuances of the terms "without due care and attention" and "without reasonable consideration" found in s. 130. There is plenty of case law on this topic and some it dates back to the 60's. I would not ...

This issue has been raised in a number of recent threads so I'll repost my article on whether police officers actually have to show up in court.

http://www.simonborys.ca/2010/08/does-a ... for-court/

Don't overestimate the ability of the officer to "help you out'' in court. Once the ticket is issued, it is technically out of their hands and they lose the ability to affect the outcome. They can make recommendations to the prosecutor, but only the prosecutor can affect the ticket now. So conceivably, the officer may want to help you but the ...

The offence only requires that you were traveling on a road somewhere in the province, so the specific location, direction, and how many other cars were on the road are not going to beat the ticket in and of themselves. They may be points you can use to attack the officer's credibility or reliability though.

If you requested an adjournment in ...

What you're suggesting, "charging people equally", is antithetical to the notion of discretion in the application of the law. Remember, the Charter doesn't entitle you to equal treatment, it only entitles you to freedom from DISCRIMINATORY treatment.

One ground of appeal that is recognized by courts is "ineffective assistance of counsel". I'm absolutely NOT commenting on whether this applies to your particular situation, but I just want to let you know that such a thing exists. It usually results in a new trial if successful. To pursue this I think you'd need to hire a lawyer (not another ...

I haven't reviewed this thread in detail, but if you were using a plate cover that you bought at a Service Ontario location, you may be able to rely on a defence of officially induced error, but I would not recommend attempting that on your own. That would be something a lawyer should assist you with.

These tickets do go on your driving record, like all driving tickets.

The officer just has to prove that it was a device capable of transmitting/receiving data, not specifically what type of device it was.

The closest thing in the exemptions would be s. 14(2) in O/Reg. 366/09, which says:

A person may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while ...

Where 2 charges apply, there's no obligation to use "the most" applicable.

Re: the value exceeding $1000, basically everything is over $1000 damage these days. If you can convince a judge that this particular lamp post wasn't apparently over $1000, then you may have a defence because of the language of the section, however it's not an automatic ...

Serial number of radar? probably
Radar users complete manual? unlikely
Rewriting notes into the Queens' English? depends on how illegible they are
Service history and age of radar? unlikely
Training of officer? case law says not relevant, if you have specific concerns about the officer's inability to operate the device you can raise that at trial ...

There is nothing wrong with two officers being involved with the issuing of a ticket. The real issue is that the correct officer (the one who can offer evidence show up in court). Section 3(5) of the POA just refers to where one officer writes up a ticket and a different officer serves it, then the officer who served it has to swear to the service.

1) If you wait and do nothing you will be deemed (under s. 9.1 of the POA) not to dispute the ticket and a conviction will be entered. If you want to contest it you have to pick option 3 on the back of the ticket and file it at the courthouse.

2) If you made the turn outside the prohibited times that sounds like a defence.

3) That may be helpful ...

There's normally not a lot of strategy to this. You pick up the package, you check it out, if there's something missing, you submit a followup disclosure request in writing shortly after. You keep repeating this process until you get everything you want or until you get to court and then you put it on the record, along with all of your efforts.

You can ask for both but you are not guaranteed to get either.

after you talk to people and have the disclosure from the cop who pulled you over you can make the decision to hire legal aid better.

Just to clarify, you can't hire legal aid. You can hire a lawyer or a paralegal. You can apply for legal aid and, if successful, they will give you a certificate which you can use to hire a lawyer and then legal ...

You'd have to read your policy and see if it excludes coverage for accidents arising out of pre existing medical conditions or anything like that. I think what you should be more concerned about it how this would affect a finding of civil negligence if you were to get into a crash because you missed another dose and got sued.

Whether you have a proactive obligation to report you suspension or charges (even if they were withdrawn or never filed) will likely be determined by your policy. Obviously if they ask you, you must be honest about it.

The suspension will stay on your record.

If the officer did conduct a search then there may be an arguable issue here about reasonable expectation of privacy and a breach of s. 8 of the Charter. If a breach is established you can apply under s. 24(2) of the Charter to have the evidence excluded, which would essentially mean no evidence, therefore no conviction.

If you were going to go ...

Fail to surrender insurance card should be $65, not $70.

If you have a legitimate concern about inadequate disclosure (due to being illegibile or any other reason) then you would be well advised to continue to make good faith attempts to rectify the issue before you bring it up in court. In my experience, JPs don't like people using the fact that they didn't get everything they asked for the first time ...

You should also look for someone who has an understanding of commercial vehicle regulations and especially the affect that tickets have on your carrier safety rating. The consequences to your CVOR status can be severe, including suspension or revocation, if you accumulate too many CVOR points.

Per the Supreme Court in R v Stinchcombe, you are entitled to anything is not "clearly irrelevant". What that means in any particular case is open to some dispute, which is why people have these arguments with prosecutors. They will say that you've been given the notes and that is sufficient. They will say they are under no standard obligation to ...

Presumably the other driver reported it to the police (the collisions reporting centre IS part of the police service) and the officer used the statement to form the grounds to believe that you had committed an offence, hence the ticket. The date on the summons is just your first appearance date. Not much usually happens on first appearance except ...

I agree, it really depends on the individual. Try to find somebody who comes with a recommendation.

Sorry, one more question.

In my case, there were two cops, one who stopped me, took the documents and handed me the tickets. The other one writing tickets on the computer. Is it correct from the legal point or it has to be one cop doing all these actions himself?

Thanks.

No, that's not correct. There's no obligation for one officer to do it ...

See Ladoceur (1990) Supreme Court.

How would they find out that you didn't have insurance?