Search found 1065 matches

Also, a reduction to 15 km (which carries 0 points) is less likely if your ticket was already reduced at the roadside.

I do have to say though that the process of suspended for a 3 days EVEN AFTER you have paid the fines AND having to pay $150 to get the license re-instated is a complete joke and cash-grab.

Just to clarify this, you're not actually suspended during this time. Once you pay off your fines with the court, you are no longer suspended. At that time ...

It is the prosecutor's "job" to hear you say guilty , either to the original charge or a reduced or amended charge.

I disagree with that. Although a prosecutor's job description includes accepting please, prosecuting cases, and obtaining convictions they are quasi-ministers of justice, and as such their main goal is to seek justice . The doesn't ...

Are you asking whether it would be better to drive your wife's car unlicenced rather than your own car?

Prosecutors will often withdraw the ticket if the witnesses don't show, but they can also ask for an adjournment and attempt to force the witnesses to court no a subsequent date. They can go so far as to ask the judge to issue a warrant for the witnesses.

Radar Identified wrote:You may want to consider hiring a paralegal or a traffic lawyer for this particular case.

Agreed. Especially if there was a statement taken from a minor (I wasn't clear on that from your post) because there can be issues with the reliability and accuracy of such statements.

Black ice is usually not much help to people charged with careless driving because the prosecutor's position is usually, "If there was black ice on the road you should have been driving slower and more carefully; then there wouldn't have been a collision." But like everything, it depends on the totality of the circumstances.

With respect to ...

If you actually had a valid licence, but couldn't produce the card, the proper charge is fail to surrender licence under s. 33(1). $85 fine ($100 total payable). If you were charged under the wrong section it will likely be withdrawn by the prosecutor if you can prove that you had a valid licence at the time you were stopped or you should be able ...

Arches wrote:Will it be any help for my case?

It certainly won't hurt! And you need all the help you can get

The fines you're looking at are likely:

1) Driving motor vehicle with only 1 license plate (rear) - $85
2) Fail to surrender permit for motor vehicle (I DO have it however, it was at home... but I do have it, and can prove it is actually my vehicle) - $85
3) The use of a defaced or altered number plate (the sticker was fake... however I found the ...

nerd wrote:you may want to spend the money for a traffic defense lawyer to try negotiating no points if it's your first offense

You can't negotiate the points.

No one is disputing what it says on the back of the ticket but, as I said, a ticket is not put into court to ask for a s. 9.1 conviction right after the 15th day.

If you should be in court but do not show, it will only make the judge angry and end up with a charge for failure to appear.

Actually you don't get charged for fail to appear in POA court. They just ask for a conviction in abstentia under s. 9.1 if it's a Part 1 ticket or have an ex-parte trail if it's a Part 3 summons.

They probably dismissed ...

Common reasons why charges are withdrawn in situations like this are: (1) officer made no notes or insufficient notes to support the a conviction, and (2) wrong charge (the charge isn't really supported on the facts as the officer recorded them) and they don't want to bother issuing a corrective summons and bringing everybody back to do it over ...

If the crown is asking for an adjournment you could argue that you are present and ready to proceed (if you actually are) and try to show that the crown's reasons for requesting an adjournment are not important enough and that you would be prejudiced somehow by having this drag out longer. If successful in avoiding the adjournment the crown would ...

It's not a malicious prosecution.

The one argument which you could possibly make (and I haven't researched any case law on this) is that, under s. 3(2) and 3(3) of the POA, the officer must fill out a ticket and serve it personally on the defendant within 30 days. This initiates a proceeding. Once this is done (which one could argue it was in your ...

If the JP was sitting at the time you were called in and given your new court date then that was it. It doesn't go to anyone afterwards to "actually be adjourned." If the JP wasn't sitting and you got a date from the clerk, then it sounds like the prosecutor just meant they were going to ask for an adjournment to that date and then they did it when ...

The 45 day benchmark (which varies form jurisdiction to jurisdiction) is the amount of days before the clerks will send that ticket to the prosecutor to put on the docket and attempt to get a s. 9.1 conviction in abstentia. Before that happens the ticket is still technically open, awaiting your reply. But since the POA says that you only have 15 ...

The limitation period for HTA offences is 6 months form the time of the offence. The limitation period for insurance offences under the CAIA is 2 years. During that time you can still be served a summons to appear in court on the charges. It's difficult to say whether you are likely to get them in the future, because there could be any number of ...

Also, "crown attorney" is a lawyer who works for the government doing prosecutions, usually criminal, sometimes provincial offences as well. But because it doesn't take as much skill to prosecute provincial offences and traffic tickets, they don't always use full fledged lawyers. Sometimes they just use someone with the necessary training but not ...

1. Admitting to a white car in front of me, wouldn't his attention have been taken away from me for even a very short time and in that time, I did my stop?

Maybe his attention was just split. Doesn't mean he wasn't paying enough attention to you to notice whether you stopped or not.

2. Wouldn't I have hit the white car's rearend if I had just ...

Although it's the city's prerogative to set whatever fines they want, I personally think that fines like this for handicap parking offences are outrageous. You could have caused a serious collision by careless driving and damaged property and injured people and still only gotten a $490 fine. That's why handicap offence fines don't really seem ...

It's true that under s. 107(1) you are required to establish a system for the periodic inspection and maintenance of commercial vehicles and under s. 107(2) you are required to carry out inspection and maintenance in accordance with that system. That system is what the MTO auditors check on. I guess the question is whether that system requires a ...

Admiralty law (also referred to as maritime law) is basically an offer and acceptance system. The ticket is the offer (the officer's claim) and the acceptance would be the payment of said ticket.

I'm not sure what admiralty law has to do with the Highway Traffic Act. Also, the problem with analogizing tickets to a contractual model of offer and ...

Q3. What sort of defense should I use for speeding ? there is no defence (other than necessity/duress) that you can use -it's an absolute liability offence. All you can do is try to raise reasonable doubt by attacking the prosecutor's evidence.
Q4. What are the consequences if it goes to trial and I don't win ? What are the charges, costs or ...

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that there's anything in law that says that repairs have to be done by a licenced mechanic for a commercial vehicle. I think the real thing to consider is possible civil liability.

If you are just referring to work that needs to be done on a vehicle when it breaks or regular maintenance, there is nothing in the HTA that says the work has to be done by a licenced mechanic. However, if the work were done improperly because the person who did it wasn't licenced, that could potentially open the company up to civil liability ...

Impossible to get the points dropped. If you are convicted of the offence the MTO will automatically assess the points against your licence. Neither JP, nor Crown, nor police officer has the authority to alter the points.

Also, even if you had asked to see the recording, the officer would not have had any obligation to show it to you at the ...

You could say that but it's not a defence. The speed limit is the MAXIMUM you can go, whether you are driving or changing lanes or passing or whatever.

I'm under the impression the spirit of the law is to prevent people from using various licences from various jurisdictions or with slight name variations.

I always thought it applied to licences of the same jurisdiction to encourage people to destroy their old licences, thereby reducing things like identity theft and people altering old DLs to ...