Ontario Highway Traffic Act

In my experience a reduction to 49 over is pretty good, but that's still a pretty severe conviction. However, unless there are some problems with the prosecutor's case or some good triable issues, I dont think they are likely to reduce further.

You're probably not at a long enough delay to request a stay for a s. 11(b) and you're also nt likely to get a stay for a s. 7 violation for lack of disclosure since the prosecution has agreed to provide it to you - they just haven't yet. Hence, an adjournment may be the likely outcome. If you do request one it would probably be a good idea to make ...

In most jurisdictions you would just see them in the morning before court starts. They usually make an announcement for people to come see them.

I undertand what you're saying but there is no right to a resolution meeting. It's just something they do to make the process more efficient. I suspect you will still have the same opportunity the morning of.

I don't really think you have much other recourse here.

Ferrari321 wrote:Thanks for the heads up. Any weight in showing that because the officer had bad judgement in copying the address that he could've also had bad judgement in writing the ticket?

That's even less likely to succeed than using it to discredit the officer, in my opnion.

An incorrect address should not prima facia invalidate the ticket. You can attempt to use the officer's error with respect to the address to say that he may also be in error about the handheld device but Justices of the Peace usually aren't sympathetic to that positiion in my experience.

You'll have to write to the prosecutor's office to request disclosure after you select option 3. Ask at the courthouse where to send the request.

What you are saying happened is not a "defence", it's your version of the facts. You can present that the the Justice of the Peace at a trail and the officer can present theirs. It is then up to the JP to decide whether your story raises reasonable doubt. If they disbelieve you then a conviction will likely follow.

This sounds like a good scenario to request disclosure and see what evidence the officer has. Once you obtain this it would probably be a good idea to consult with a lawyer or paralegal given the severity of a careless driving conviction and the complexity of careless law.

It will show if you are convicted - regardless of whether that conviction comes by way of a plea or a finding of guilt after a trial.

Prosecutors will often still entertain plea deals when the feel they would likely win because a plea saves them the hassle of the trial and gives certainty in a conviction. Sometimes people plea a speeding charge down to disobey sign (the speed limit sign). I doubt that they will withdraw the ticket and allow you to make a charitable donation.

The answer can be found here: http://simonborys.wordpress.com/2010/12 ... adar-trap/

It's not just filling out the form though for a paralegal or lawyer. An unrepresented person may be able to get away with that but the paralegal will have to write a factum outlining the law on the issue, the facts of your case, and the application on the law to the facts. In addition they have to prepare affadavits for you and themselves, plus a ...

I think insurance companies are usually just concerned with your last 3 calendar years of drivng history. They do also favourably consider all of your continuous years of insured driving because those years, if collision free, also form part of your driving history for them, but i dont think that necessarily means they look negatively on uninsured ...

It is true that you shouldn't be able to be properly convicted of a novice driver offence if you in fact had no licence. Guiltywith an explation may not be the option you want if you plan on disputing 1 of the 3 charges. You might have better luck requesting a trial and then speaking with the prosecutor in advance at a resolution meeting. They ...