Search found 1065 matches

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.

Actually you have no standing to argue that your rights were violated on your friend's tickets. That's not the way it works. Now they can argue a lot of the same issues, but it has to be from their perspective.

As has been said, the stop is probably not the problem here, because of the general HTA authority & supporting case law which approves ...

Entrapment does apply to provincial offences, including the HTA.

Answers can be found here: http://www.simonborys.ca/2010/08/do-you ... r-3-years/

As I posted in another thread, there's 1 table for calculating fines based on speed for the purpose of the out of court fine on the Part 1 certificate and another for calculating the fine after trial.

Actually a complete lack of disclosure as was described above would probably be considered inadequate. Remember that the prosecution's constitutional obligation (per Stinchcombe) is to disclose anything that is not "clearly irrelevant". That applies to the content of documents, not just to the documents themselves. So for example, the prosecutor ...

The difference is that one is for the calculation of fines for speeding for the out of court amount indicated on a Part 1 certificate and the other is for the calculation of fines for speeding after a trial. I can't remember off hand which one is which.

lol ejadoo, only too true! unfortunately the courts rely on precedent to decide cases so in reality decisions are made by a few select judges and the rest follows or has to follow? I'm not sure if I judge can successfully rule against a precedent. thanks for the link

The referenced US case law has no bearing on Canadian judges. It's barely even ...

A radar reading must be fool proof to convict someone otherwise the advantage of doubt should go towards the accused.

That's not correct and that misconception is why there is so much discussion about this topic of the fallibility of radar devices. Proof to the level of absolute certainty is not required. All that is required is proof beyond a ...

The topic of "supporting documents" for the accuracy of the radar (i.e. calibration certificates, conformance documents, etc) has been discussed on this forum before. The thing you have to remember is that the crown is not required to prove the charge with absolute certainty. In other words, they don't necessarily need to prove that the device that ...

Mobile homes do have certain exceptions within the commercial vehicle scheme. For example,
s. 16(1)(a) - it is not a CMV for the purposes of s. 16 and s. 17-23.1
O/Reg 199/07 s. 1(1)(b) - s. 107 of the HTA does not apply to mobile homes, etc
O/Reg 611 - certain annual inspection provisions don't apply
etc, etc

I'm sure there is (or was at some ...

If you're talking about the 2 bound copies of the 11(b) Charter motion you serve one on the prosecutor but then you still have to file the other one with the court IN ADVANCE of the trial - not on the day of.

Moreover, they are not really supposed to know all by laws. The property management should put a no parking sign on the opposite side of the road. Doubt though there is a chance to negotiate with them about getting money back.

Actually, you are supposed to know all the by-laws. Ignorance of the law is not a defence in court, no matter how ...

I think you're misunderstanding entrapment. Without going into all the legal nuances of it, it is NOT entrapment per say to provide someone with the opportunity to commit a crime. For example, when an undercover officer approaches someone they have a suspicion is selling drugs and tries to buy from them, that is NOT entrapment, even though they've ...

Where the officer was parked has no impact on whether the offence of speeding can be proven in court. The answer to your second question is here: http://www.simonborys.ca/2010/04/does-a ... the-radar/

The risk of going to jail for drive suspend does not violate s. 7. All the SCC was saying in the BC MV case was that where there is a risk to liberty (where you can go to jail) it can't be for an absolute liability offence. THAT would be a violation of s. 7. As was said, drive suspend is NOT an absolute liability offence, it's strict.