Ontario Highway Traffic Act

No authority is needed to check licences plates at random. The reason being, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information connected to your licence plate, therefore running it doesn't engage the Charter (like a traffic stop does), therefore no authority is needed. (At least I'm not aware that anyone has successfully argued ...

Remember though that the charge for commercial motor vehicles also carries CVOR points - I believe it's 1 for this offence.

O/Reg 625 s. 5(b): A tire fitted on a vehicle shall not...contact any vehicle component so as to affect the safe operation of the vehicle.

I take it the officer felt that the vehicle was so low that there was contact and that therefore the tire was improper.

There isn't just a form that you fill out for something like this. Usually you would write and file a factum, along with any supporting affidavits and other materials that form part of your application record. You may also need to file form 4F if, as it says on the forum, you are challenging the constitutional validity of a particular act or ...

Normally, in a situation like this, you would bring a motion to compel the disclosure of the missing items. It's called a Stinchcombe application. The remedy if the application is granted is that you get the disclosure. You can only get a stay as a remedy in the "clearest of cases", according to the case law, where no lesser remedy would suffice. I ...

What would be the basis for your s. 7 application? What is it your are claiming is violating your right to full answer and defence? Also, what remedy are you applying for? A stay of proceedings? or disclosure of the items you are asking for? These are the things you need to be clear on if you are considering bringing a s. 7 application. I would ...

If you think that the photos don't make out the offence you may be able to apply to a Justice of the Peace to issue a summons for the officer who certified the photographs pursuant to s. 205.20 of the HTA and s. 39 of the POA so they can be cross examined at your trial. According the 2004 case of Yan from the Ontario Court of Appeal the onus is on ...

That's not likely to be a fatal error. That is more for court administration purposes.

Just to expand a little, that section of the charter doesnt prevent you from being charged with the two offences, but it does mean you shouldnt be convicted of both. The most common example in Court that I can think of is impaired drivers, where most are charged with impaired and over 80, but can only be convicted of one of the offences.

This is ...

Fizscy wrote:If you are walking down the street, you need only give your name

Where do you get that from?

The Canada and Ontario Evidence Acts are irrelevant here, since the crown will not likely be trying to enter the officer's notes as proof of anything. The notes are to refresh his memory. His oral testimony is what the court will consider.

Ultimately, if you are don't receive the documentation that you feel would make the disclosure obligation complete, then you bring a Stinchcombe application and litigate it before the presiding justice. This requires a notice of application, a factum, and whatever supporting documents you have (i.e. correspondence). Together, the notice + factum ...

Following up on this, it's important to remember that the definition of "highway" in the HTA is fairly broad and often can be interpreted to cover situations like this, including car pools and sometimes thru ways in parking lots.

"highway" includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or ...

There's no such thing as "motion to dismiss". If you want to file a Charter application you need a Notice of Application and an actual application (i.e. a factum). The notice + the application + the supporting documentation forms the "application record" that will be before the courts. You can find templates for these types of documents in ...

I'm not sure if there's a clear answer to that. It probably discussed in case law somewhere. If not, you would have to try to convince the JP that you fall within that definition.