Search found 1065 matches

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)).

Window tinting is not illegal per se, however s. 73(2) of the HTA says that tint can not obscure the drivers view of the roadway and s. 73(3) says that tint on the front windshield or on the windows to the left or right of the driver can not obscure the view of the interior from the outside.

Whether a tint obscures is a matter of articulation of ...

hwybear wrote:just for info - sticker is valid ONLY to the actual birthday of the owner, not the end of month (unless of course the bday is March 31st)

Except for commercial vehicles, those expire on the last day of the month.

legalize-it wrote:I was told a rule is: ONE COP ONE CAR - this was my defense.

For the record that's not the case. An officer can pull over multiple vehicles at once.

If you were not the lone occupant of the vehicle then that seems to be good grounds to fight the charge on. If you were then I think you committed the offence the moment you entered into the HOV lane, regardless of how brief a time you were in it for.

The fine for a novice driver driving without a proper accompanying driver is $85. There is no specific charge for being an unqualified accompanying driver, however if the accompanying driver is found to have the requisite amount of control over the situation they may be charged with permitting a novice driver to driver in contravention of their ...

I find O/Reg 950 pretty useless because it's (a) way too long to scroll through to find what you're looking for, and (b) doesn't have any of the set fines. I prefer this for HTA: http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/ocj/en/s ... dule43.doc and here's O/Reg 596 http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/ocj/en/s ... dule50.doc

Squishy wrote:I think Simon meant to post this.

http://simonborys.wordpress.com/2010/08 ... r-3-years/

Indeed I did, thanks!

Remember that a red light camera conviction doesn't carry any points and usually doesn't affect your insurance because it technically wasn't issued to you (as a driver), so accepting a conviction is not acknowledgment that it was you who actually committed the offence.

When I had a person claiming their fog lights were head lights for the purpose of 62(1), I charged under O/Reg 596 s. 2(1) for the lack of high/low beam capability. It's an $85/110 fine as well. The section reads:

2. (1) Subject to section 3, the headlamps on a motor vehicle shall be capable of projecting at least two beams, so controlled that ...

Read this post re: how long fines stay on your record. That should answer most of your questions. Also, re: your insurance, the problem for you now seems to be that when you apply for new insurance you have to answer "yes" to whether your licence has ever been suspended. That may drive your rates up, but nothing you can do about it now, since the ...

Just to clarify what Stanton said, fatal flaws don't apply to court summons like they do to regular tickets because the summons is not the official charging document like the ticket is, it's just a summons to compel you to attend court. However, the missing name is still relevant because without the name the summons isn't complete so I'd say you ...

The officer doesn't have internet access in his cruiser, so he can't look it up. Also, the reason for taking the helmet is to do a detailed visual inspection of it. You can be charged for failing to wear a helmet if your helmet is DOT approved but doesn't meet certain criteria or is damaged. Putting DOT stickers on non-DOT approved helmets is ...

If you would have rejected the date offered they would probably have just picked another one that the officer was working so he would have been just as likely to attend. Also, any further delay after the first date that was offered could have been counted against you if you decide to file an 11(b). Personally I think 17 months is great for an 11(b ...

Misspelled road is not a fatal error. All that needs to be proven is that you committed the offence on a highway in the judicial region.

Depends if they are proceeding with the stunt driving charge under s. 172 and/or the speeding charge under s. 128. They'll usually offer to drop one if you plead to the other, but, in my opinion, that's not that great a deal because I'm not sure if they would even be able to get convictions on both since they're essentially 2 charges for the same ...