Ontario Highway Traffic Act

The remedy for lack of disclosure is a motion under s. 7 of the Charter that your right to make full answer and defence has been violated due to the lack of disclosure. That's not an argument easily made, nor is it something you're going to be able to do the first time you show up in court without all the disclosure you need. What usually happens ...

Fine for driving without a licence is $325. No points since it's a non-moving violation. That being said, any offence can potentially affect your insurance, even non-moving violations, especially when they're related to licencing.

You don't need to request a trial just to get in front of a judge and ask for a reduced fine. That's what option 2 is for - to plead guilty with an explanation.

Just to clarify what Stanton said, it is ONLY the crown who has the authority/power to decide which charges will be pursued or dropped. The officer can make recommendations to the prosecutor, but they can't promise you anything (at the roadside or in court) because it's simply not their call.

The fact that the suspension was due to an apparent minor oversight which you have since corrected will go strongly in your favour if you try to get the drive suspend plead down to drive no licence. It can be done in situations like yours and a paralegal or lawyer may be better able to frame your position and sell it to the prosecutor. Bear in mind ...

The officer has said that if she does not here from the mto by 5pm that my wife will be charged with driving with illegal plates and fined 5000$.

There's no basis for saying this. A charge for unauthorized plates does carry no set fine, but the reality is that, even if you were convicted, and it sounds like you may have a defence if you do get ...

If you are suspended for unpaid fines and want your licence back now you can go to your local court house and request a date to speak with a JP about it. In essence, they can re-open the sentence, so to speak, and allow you to make an arrangement to begin regular payments on the fines. Then, as long as you are making the payments, you can get your ...

As I've said in other threads, what I've observed in provincial offences court recently is that they JPs are not allowing anyone to use the postal strike as an excuse. They are saying that the onus is still on you to determine dates and do things on time. I would not suggest ignoring the lack of a letter.

Radar Identified wrote:You won't get a suspension in this case.

I agree. Suspension is very unlikely. Also, interesting bylaw, I was not aware of that one.

Were you charged under a city by-law or were you charged under the HTA for improper use of the high occupancy vehicle lane? If it is the high occupancy vehicle lane you are referring to by the "diamond lane", I don't think city's have the authority to make by-laws about how you can or can't drive in it.

Your licence doesn't normally get suspended ...

JPs are NOT accepting the postal strike as an excuse. I've been in court recently and heard it said several times.

generik99 wrote:the mandatory 6-month suspension will put me out of business and out of work

What mandatory 6-month suspension?

There is a Law Society of Upper Canada bylaw on when you can act for someone without being a licenced lawyer or paralegal. I'd suggest you review it. However, regardless of whether you fit all of the criteria outlined in the bylaw, you can only act at the direction of the person who is charged. If they don't want to fight it, you can't take it upon ...

What the officer means is that you probably could have been charged with careless, but that's not what he charged you with so you can deal with the prosecutor on the charge you are specifically charged with and not what it "could have been". The points are non-negotiable, but if you can show financial hardship then the fine may be reduced. You're ...

These are all great points about achieving CERTAINTY with respect to the operation and calibration of the machine, but I think we need to remember that the standard of proof in court is LESS than certainty; it's only "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". This means that you may properly have a conviction on a charge of speeding, even if you can't show ...