Search found 1065 matches

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?

I wasn't aware of O/Reg 611 s. 8(5), but as I see it:

The month of inspection is July 2010
The 1st month after that is August
2nd = September
3rd = October
4th = November
5th = December
6th = January 2011
7th = February
8th = March
9th = April
10th = May
11th = June
12th month after the month of inspection = July 2011; then end of that month ...

If you check the box saying that you are going to challenge the officer's evidence that just means they will give you a court date that he is working. That's the way scheduling works so officers don't have to come in on their days off and get paid overtime for traffic tickets. It doesn't mean the officer HAS to attend, as you can resolve it before ...

You can fill out a form if a form is used in that jurisdiction. You can write a letter if no form is used in that jurisdiction. Instead of faxing or mailing a letter you can go in with 2 copies and have them stamp them, if you want.

You don't have to include your phone #, but that doesn't affect anything. They may or may not mail it to you ...

I don't think you can properly be convicted of "operating" the motor vehicle in this situation. But, I also agree with Stanton that there may be grounds to charge you based on your driving the vehicle to that location, if the police can prove that.

I agree that his annual inspection sticker did not expire on July 16 because it always expires at the end of the month, but I believe it is the end of the month which it is punched out for of the following year. So if the sticker was punched for July 2010, it expires the end of July 2011. I am not aware of any mention of a grace period in the HTA ...

But you did receive the notice of trial, so how can you say that you didn't? Even if you actually didn't receive the notice, that is not grounds to have the charges stayed. That would just mean you would be convicted in abstentia for not showing up but you would have cause to have the case reopened so you could attend and have a trail.

Of course you can fight the speeding ticket, but I wouldn't expect much of a break from the prosecutor considering the circumstances of your case and the breaks you already got for the reduction and not being charged with the other tickets. For those reasons I would not be surprised if they didn't drop the insurance ticket either.

Also be aware ...

The presence of the office at a resolution meeting? They don't normally attend those. If you meant at the trial, then that depends on whether you intend on challenging the officers evidence if it does go to trial.

23 over in most cases will be reduced by the prosecutor to 15 over if you just ask. In my experience most prosecutors will often automatically offer a 10 km reduction and anything further than that you'd have to negotiate on - you're only seeking an 8 km reduction so that should be possible. But of course this depends on your record, any ...

s. 34 of the POA gives the court the jurisdiction to amend things like spelling mistakes, incorrect numbers, addresses, etc. It's not meant to give them the ability to change the charge on you. That would violate your right under s. 7 of the Charter to make full answer and defence.

There's not really any way for you to challenge the officer's decision not to use his discretion to reduce your ticket. Use of discretion in charging is, as the word indicates, completely at the officer's discretion, subject to any improper use of discretion for reasons such as racial profiling. If you want to raise that issue or some other ...

Incorrect location is probably not going to be considered a fatal error. If you raise it the prosecutor will probably ask for it to be amended to the correct location and it's not really material to the charge since when you are arraigned the charge wording will only say that you are charged with committing the offence of unsafe turn on x date in ...

You should be able to request disclosure and have a resolution meeting with the crown after you get it. If you're looking for a reduction from 36 over to 16-29 over I'd say that is probably doable, at least in my experience - 29 over being much more doable than 16 over. Also, you are unlikely to get a further reduction on the fine amount in ...

According to this case,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2009/2009oncj150/2009oncj150.html ,
you can make the motion at the trial without providing notice.

This case, R v Vellone, is currently under appeal by the crown at the Ontario Court of Appeal. It has not been heard yet. If you're going to use it you might want to make sure it's hasn ...

For someone to get you no points and a $60 fine on a 41 over they'd have to get it reduced to 15 over. In my opinion that's almost inconceivable, even if you have a clean record.

Also, no one has the ability to deal away the points, they accord with whatever speed your are convicted of. Read this here: http://simonborys.wordpress.com/2011/06/28 ...