Ontario Highway Traffic Act

The officer MUST serve the driver with a notice form pursuant to s. 82(6) before the driver can be charged with failing/refusing to comply with any directions under s. 82 related to moving the vehicle or assisting in the examination. The approved form is the Vehicle Defect Report Notice.

An appeal will not necessarily result in a new trial. If the appellate judge rules that there were enough facts on the record to support a conviction, but for the fact that the JP quashed it because the ticket was not signed, they don't need to send it back for a new trial, since those findings of fact have already been made. In this case they can ...

They will amend back up to the original speed and there is no excuse for speeding that the court will accept - it is an absolute liability offence.

The address is not a fatal error. Also, there is no requirement to signal unless other vehicles may be affected by your movement.

If you feel you didn't commit the offence you should request a trial and tell that to the JP. The officer will present their version of the events and then the JP will decide whether there is reasonable doubt after ...

Prejudice relates to the general stigma attached to being accused of a crime and having that label for longer than necessary and also to any specific prejudice you suffered (like you lost your job because you had been charged or were unable to move on with your life, etc).

In my original request for disclosure, among other things I specifically asked to be included:

- A full description and explanation of the offense with which I am being charged;

That's not something you get in disclosure. If you want to know what it is, read the section.

- If short-form writing is used in the officer's notes, please have the ...

s. 9 of O/Reg 340/94 says a novice driver can get suspended for a single conviction that carries 4 or more points, regardless of how many other points they have.

I wouldn't disagree with that, but as I said, it depends on the jurisdiction.

I agree, insurance companies are all over the place. I don't think they look at the specific speed, but the range, as you suggested. Whatever range 49 over is in it is going to be pretty severe, but I don't know if they'd cancel on you for that. I do think though (just personally - I don't know if this is true) that 49 over is in a different ...

I think that would be at the very low end of possibility, at that depends on your jurisdiction.

The court is obligated to provide a translator to interpret for him, however the translator can not and will not assist him in any way with the process. They will only translate what is said. Because they are obligated to do this there is no need for you to translate and they wouldn't let you even if you wanted to because you're not an accredited ...

As Stanton said, they are all over the place, but I would check mudguard requirements under HTA s. 66(3), O/Reg 625 on Tire Specifications (though the only charge is driving with studded tires in s. 9(1) - the rest of the sections just go to whether the vehicle has proper tires per s. 70(3)(a) of the HTA or is unsafe per s. 82). Also check Schedule ...

Sorry rebel, I actually did look for that information but I couldn't find it either.

@Stanton, I searched for case law on the issue and couldn't find any to clarify.

Good to know. I'd say that would qualify for a due dilligence defence if you were charged for the faded plates.

I see how you're reading it, I just don't think that's correct. Does anybody else want to weigh in on this and give an opinion as to which grammatical interpretation you think is correct?