Ontario Highway Traffic Act

What are you asking exactly? "Is there any way to get this dropped?" is a pretty broad question. If you are asking if the fact of where you were headed and why has any bearing, I would suggest it does not, except perhaps with respect to penalty.

The court will not appreciate you going there just to say that the officer told you you weren't entitled to that information but you now know that you are. They will ask you when you found out about it and then they will ask you why you didn't request it as soon as you found out.

Sounds like the officer did his investigation, spoke with all parties (including an independent witness) and formed grounds that the driver of your vehicle broke the law. I probably would have too, based on the information you provided, because of the independent witness. Whether that will be enough to convict the driver of your vehicle in court ...

Insurance companies aren't in the habit of disclosing this information to the police.

You can file an appeal at any time, they may or may not grant it. My opinion is that it's not likely to be granted in this case. Reasons: 1) conviction was just because you forgot and 2) because it's been so long.

rajasam78 wrote:I can reduce the number of points deducted. If so how best to present this to the prosecutor.

Points are non-negotiable. They can't be reduced.

You could file an 11(b) for delay or a motion to stay the charges based on lack of disclosure, or both.

Just so you're aware, most of what is listed in your blanket disclosure request likely doesn't apply to your case, so don't be surprised when you only get a couple pieces of paper with the officer's notes on it.

No one addressed the "principles" listed on the website above: that "a momentary lapse or a simple error in judgment," or "mere inadvertent negligence" is insufficient to justify a conviction for careless driving; that "more than a bare act of negligence must be proven." I'm assuming I'd want to find specific cases where this is cited if it gets ...

She then grasps for the last straw and says that I should watch my speed and which I say "What did you clock me going?" She just says well when the car in front of you moved over you sped up. I said that's not speeding unless you have a device showing me my speed. She did not and then lets me go without looking at license or anything.

How ...

Yes, I agree. Those facts don't help you. What you will likely need to do at trial, if it goes that far, is have a good agent who can force the crown to prove the offence without any witnesses, without introducing any of your own evidence, because as we've just seen, it may not be of any assistance to you.

Also, a meeting with the prosecutor won't ...

They didn't HAVE to give you a ticket, they felt it was warranted in the situation and issued it. Read this: http://simonborys.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/does-a-police-officer-ever-have-to-give-you-a-ticket/

That being said, this is a good scenario to hiring someone to assist you at a trial because there are some good questions to be asked about how ...

I think there's more to your friends story than you were told, because that's just wrong. Police do NOT need permission to park on private property to conduct traffic enforcement for tickets to be valid. I'm sure the officers on here will agree with this.

Further to that, the defence of due dilligence means you did everything reasonably possible to avoid committing the offence, which means you would have to establish that, even given the poor road/weather conditions, you did everything reasonable to moderate your driving while approaching the stop sign so that you would be able to stop. I think that ...

You can use a due dilligence defence, IF it applies on the facts. However the fact that you weren't driving according to weather/road conditions (as you said in a previous post) does not make out a due dilligence defence, in fact that's the complete opposite. Due dilligence would be I WAS driving according to weather/road conditions.