Ontario Highway Traffic Act

In the jurisdiction I used to work in the prosecutor asked for it in literally every case of reduced speeding that went to trail. It is not a scare tactic. Reason being that if they're going to have the trial anyway, they're going to have it at the original speed since it's no more work for them.

With respect to noise, I agree that the best way is to measure the noise and compare it to a legal decibel limit. However this requires specialized equipment not readily available to all law enforcement officers. Therefore, police must articulate HOW the noise was excessive. This is really no different than articulating anything else in relation to ...

There is a form that officers can use (a Vehicle Defect Report Notice) to compel people to attend at a designated time and place for a detailed inspection by an officer or to attend a mechanics for a full safety, but that still doesn't address the issue of an improper muffler unless the person doing the inspection knows that they're looking for ...

The answer is because most officers (at least in my experience) don't know how to properly inspect a bike's muffler to determine if it is improper and they need to do something more than just say it was loud in order to get a conviction for improper muffler.

Even for unnecessary noise, something more that just "loud" is usually needed because the ...

I wouldn't say it COULDN'T be careless driving, but perhaps something like fail to yield would be more appropriate. Remember, the definition of careless driving is just "without due care and attention" or "without reasonable consideration for other people on the road". That's pretty broad and it could be argued that what happened here meets one of ...

No one can advise you whether your insurance will go up. It's always a case by case basis. Also, I wouldn't recommend saying anything that's not true regarding why you were in the lane. If you actually thought it was ending that's one thing, but if you were just impatient don't say you thought it was ending.

I'd never say that there's NO chance, but the facts of this case sound pretty simple: you were in the HOV lane when you shouldn't have been. If the officer can establish this, there will probably be a conviction, unless there is something else you can say in your defence.

The error involving the direction of travel is not fatal. With respect to your defence, the trick will be convincing the JP that the view that you claim to have had when you went to the place the officer was (the view you took pictures of) is the view the officer had. If he was in a slightly different position or at a slightly different angle, he ...

Call the court house and ask for a date for a resolution meeting.

The facts to support the unsafe lane change seem clear, but I can't tell from your post what are the facts that are alleged to support the improper turn. You may want to request disclosure to see what evidence the officer has in support of the improper turn charge.

The speed does not sound critical to a conviction, it is more about your actual driving and the fact that you took the eyes off the road.

I agree, the damage to your vehicle is completely a matter for insurance companies and/or a civil law suit. Fault under the HTA is not determinative of fault for insurance or a civil suit, but they can coincide.

i guess for whatever reason he isn't allowed to point out the specific error

A judge or JP must remain from real or percevied bias. It would be as much a bias towards the crown if he helped you out as it would be to you if he gave answers to the crown. They are supposed to be a neutral arbiter, but it's nice to hear that they were able to help ...

I would suggest that no signature on the ticket is a fatal error. The ticket should be quashed on that basis.

In terms of limitation periods, a school bus ticket must be issued to the owner within 23 days of the offence (O/Reg 468/05 s. 1(1)). A driver, if identified, must be issued a Part 1 ticket within 30 days of the offence (POA s. 3(3)) and a Part 3 summons within 6 months (POA s. 76(1)).