Search found 1065 matches

First of all, the correct charge wording for the offence under 62(19) is not "Improper amber plate light (white light only shining on plate)", it's "improper number plate light". You could raise this issue, but I don't know if it's a fatal error. Your previous conviction for speeding is unrelated to the plate light so will not likely be held ...

I don't think s. 85 is applicable to your case. What are you asking for an extension of time for? To pick one of the options on your ticket? That ship has sailed if you've already been convicted - which you need to call the court to find out. If you have, you can apply to have the ticket re-opened. You can cite the reasons you provided, but I don't ...

Sounds like you got the manual for the device that the officer was using, so I'm not sure what the problem is there. Other than the fact that it's old, I'm assuming you don't actually have any information that it's NOT the device that the officer was using...

Furthermore, you normally don't bring a s. 7 application to stay the proceedings because ...

Exhaust charges are often very discretionary, so the officer may still feel that he has grounds to lay the charge, even if the MTO or other officers have said it's ok.

You shouldn't need to write a factum at all. You should be able to make your argument orally on the day of. The rules state that you should do a factum and serve it on the crown beforehand, but I don't think they're stringently enforced against non-lawyers.

As it says on your printout, it is an ADMINISTRATIVE suspension, which is why I think it is covered by the FSCO bulletin.

I'm not clear on whether there is a conviction on his record or just a notation about the fact that he was suspended. If there is a record for conviction and he hasn't been convicted, then that is a mistake and should be able to be rectified. I don't know who you'd talk to for that. Someone at the MTO, I imagine.

If the record is just about the ...

I think there are any number of reasons why people quit policing - stress, tired of shift work, naturally retired, fed up, got in trouble, etc. For these people, moving into something like being a paralegal is a logical move because it allows the (former) officer to capitalize on their years of experience in the justice system. This can be a ...

I don't think it's a question of his word being better because he's a bus driver - that's why they bring in an out of town prosecutor for theses situations. To be clear, NO ONE has the authority to reduce points. They only way people end up with less points is, as Stanton said, they plead to an offence that carries less points. However, I am not ...

I disagree that you can't or shouldn't be charged for the same offence on 2 successive days. If you could only be charged once then you could just continue to park indefinitely with no further consequences. Same thing with an expired licence plate, if you get charged once should you be able to drive the rest of the year without paying?

Prosecutor can't offer you 1 point instead of 3. He doesn't have the authority. The charge was reviewed by an outside jurisdiction because that's the way it's always done when a city vehicle is involved to avoid the allegation of bias. His was dropped probably because the facts would not support the charge. Yours wasn't because, presumably, the ...

The time is probably an amendable error since when you are arraigned they charge you "on or about the xth day of whatever month", meaning they don't have to prove a specific time.

You can have a resolution meeting before receiving disclosure, but most people don't because you don't know what the evidence is and therefore you don't know what your leverage is. You can decide to hire a lawyer or paralegal at any time throughout the process. You have from the time of the resolution meeting until the time of your next court date ...

Yes, I believe you are right. Thank you for correcting that.

The important thing to remember here, and it often comes up so I wanted to mention it, is that the officer's attitude and behaviour has no impact on the merits of the ticket they issued. The appropriate forum to complain about an officer's behaviour is with the police service, not with the court.

I've seen a number of trials where the defendant's ...

Well done on preparing and arguing the 11(b). Id just make a couple of points:

1) The stunt driving legislation and the seizure powers are not actually unconstitutional, as you suggested.
2) It should only be the record of the suspension that is on your record, not the record of the charges, since you were never convicted. The suspension itself ...

It's entirely possible, though no one but your insurance company can say for sure what the effect will be. Usually 1 or 2 minor speeding tickets don't have an effect, but you've got more than that, so they may.

Normally you don't file an 11(b) on the spot. You serve your materials on the crown and the AG in advance, then argue it in court.

You are responsible for your own lawyer's costs unless you win a costs award against the crown.

No, they don't have to.

If you fight it it almost certainly will.

9 weeks is probably sufficient time in a provincial offences case. I would request again by phone and by an additional letter or fax because it shows due diligence on your part. If you don't get disclosure by the court date, what you suggested should suffice, just be ready to explain what "additional attempts" you made after the 1st one.

I would say car on the left.

R v Ladouceur (1990) Supreme Court decided that random stops are a violation of s. 9 but are a limit prescribed by law (what is now s. 216(1) of the HTA in Ontario) and are justified under s. 1.

Selective stops of vehicles that are committing offences are even more easily justified because there is a specific reason to stop them.

Selective stops ...

There's going to be a wide disparity in fees charged amongst lawyers based on their location and experience. Financially you would of course be better off to do the appeal yourself, but then you run the risk of losing, so you have to weigh that against the costs of hiring a lawyer.

You will know what the grounds for the appeal are when you get ...

It may well be considered a s. 9 violation, as the Charter is probably engaged at the time they are detained, but if so, it would be justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

@Stanton - I see what you're saying, if he's suspended already in Ontario he may be suspended when he gets a new licence in another province. It may well work that way, I don't know. But I think if it did, it would only be the case if he was suspended for unpaid fines BEFORE he went to get a licence in another jurisdiction. I don't think they have ...

Only if you feel your guilty. It would be unethical to advise you to plead guilty if you didn't. And even if you do feel you're guilty, you're still entitled to force the crown to prove their case, since the presumption is of innocence. It's really a personal choice.

I've never heard of the trial being the same day as the first appearance. First appearance is usually just for you to get your disclosure and enter an early plea if that is your intention.

If you do hire a representative, they can sometimes ask for adjournment(s) in order to give you time to fully retain them (i.e. save up the money) as long as ...

Be aware that if you fail to pay the fine in Ontario, you would definitely be suspended Canada wide, regardless if the conviction shows.

If he's suspended for unpaid fines, that only applies to his Ontario driver's licence. That means he can't drive in Ontario on his Ontario licence, nor can he drive in Ontario under the jurisdiction of another ...