Ontario Highway Traffic Act

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 ...