Search found 1065 matches

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.

Can I argue about the speed, how does the officer know I was going 20 km/h.
What are you going to argue about this, it's just a guess and he doesn't need to prove what your speed was to prove the offence, he just has to prove that you were going more than zero km/hr.

Also the officer was parked in a small plaza (Macs, daycare, pizza place ...

The time between this date and the next available date is institutional delay, not your fault. I just meant I don't know if any of the other time is attributable to you.

If everybody went to trial courts would grind to a halt and everybody would get their charges stayed for the delay. But, as you've pointed out, that's not what happens. However in your case, I think 18 months is a great case for 11(b), provided none of that delay is attributable to you.

That's not uncommon to give one week to decide about something in June. They might be trying to plan out the court schedule or the officer's schedules or something like that.

The point of making a deal before the trail date is that it saves time - it's just not practical for everyone to have their resolution meeting in the 30 minutes before court starts. Why do you want to make a resolution early? Because it saves the prosecutor from having to have the officer there, ergo, better deal for you because you wasted less ...

Once you reach your deal you will still need to attend court to plead guilty to the amended offence of 15 over. Once that's done you will be sent notice in the mail and can pay using the information on that notice, or you can pay at the courthouse right after court.

First of all, no one can "get the points reduced". They are automatically assessed based on whatever speed you are convicted of or plea to. The way people end up with reduced points for speeding offences is that they plea to a lower speed (and then get the points associated with that speed). You can arrange that deal or you can have an agent do it ...

That sounds much more reasonable.

Sounds like a good defence. You could request a resolution meeting with the crown and bring it up.

I don't think that's reasonable. You have to come prepared for either eventuality.

Usually people meet with the crown in the morning to sort things out. Reason being that pleas go first and then trials. They're not going to like it if you wait until all the pleas are done and then go up to them right before your trial starts and want to talk plea bargain. It depends on the prosecutor, but deals are often take it or leave it. You ...

Depends on the JP, it's not out of the question to get another adjournment.

You can chose to not respond at all. If you do that, the JP will be required to review your ticket when it comes up to see if it is "complete and regular on its face". If it is not, it should be quashed. However, this relies on the JP to catch the error. If they don't then a conviction is entered and you'll have to appeal. The other alternative is ...

1) Wrong address is not a fatal error. 2) It's never too late to request disclosure. 3) I don't know what your question about the check box means? What are you asking exactly?

To Stanton's reply I would add that you can argue that you never received the notice of suspension, but it is not required that you received it in order to be charged and convicted (s. 52 of the Highway Traffic Act).

Convictions for suspend drive are really bad for insurance so you may want to consider hiring someone to assist you. If you live in ...