Search found 1065 matches

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 ...

You mean the cross examination? That's more an art than a science and how it goes depends largely on how the prosecutor's examination n chief goes so im not really sure what i can say by way of general advice.

Good question...not sure, I think just calendar days.

Rules of Criminal Procedure say 15 days minimum.

I can't tell from your post if you're aware of this or not, but if your case gets adjourned you are not arraigned on that date. It's only if your adjournment is denied that they proceed with arraignment and you have to enter a plea.

With respect to your oral arguments for a stay based on insufficient disclosure (a s. 7 argument) and unreasonable ...

AlienAlien117 wrote:My E-Bike was towed and impounded for seven days

What for?

In response to Viper: The staging could have been because someone up ahead was going to do a high risk takedown or something like that...who knows. You're correct response whenever an emergency vehicle is approaching is to move to the right, hence the reason why it's so dangerous to pass on the right. I would know what else to suggest you could do ...

Passing on the right is VERY dangerous. They teach you at police college never to do it, but they hardly need to say that for obvious reasons: everybody is taught to move over to the right for emergency vehicles. That being said, my opinion is that the only thing likely to make officers drive that fast and dangerously (unthinkingly perhaps?) is ...

I've answered more than a few questions about demerit points on this forum and during my time as a police officer, so I decided to write an article about it, which can be found here: http://simonborys.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/demerit-points-in-ontario/

I hope that if people search this board for "demerit points" they read the article before asking ...

Depends whether you feel it's worth it to put the time/money into it.

Ok, my understanding from what you wrote was that you requested an adjournment because you didnt have all the documents the officer wanted to see before recommending that certain charges be dropped. That would be on you. If the record reflects that it was because of outstanding disclosure thats a different story, but you didnt mention anything ...

Don't be surprised if you don't actually get anything on that list. And with respect to the radar manual specifically, it's unusual to get more than 1 or a couple pages.

First, the officer has no authority to have the tickets dropped once he submits the tickets to court. He can make recommendations to the prosecutor, but ultimately it is not his call as to what happens, so don't rely on his word that they anything will be dropped. Also, I would be surprised if they would drop 8 out of 9 charges and just leave you ...

Also, it is an offence to drive in Ontario on a licence from another jurisdiction while your Ontario licence is suspended. It is also an offence to obtain a second Ontario licence if you already have one.

Normally when it the defendant agrees that they were speeding but disputes the amount (i.e. I was going 110 but not 135), the court prefers the officer's evidence of you speed, obtained with instruments specifically designed for that purpose over your evidence of "I just don't think I was going that fast." Just something to be mindful of...

Also ...

No one except your insurance company can give you an idea of who a particular ticket will affect your insurance since it depends on too many unknown factors. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or just guessing.