Ontario Highway Traffic Act

Actually you have no standing to argue that your rights were violated on your friend's tickets. That's not the way it works. Now they can argue a lot of the same issues, but it has to be from their perspective.

As has been said, the stop is probably not the problem here, because of the general HTA authority & supporting case law which approves ...

Entrapment does apply to provincial offences, including the HTA.

Answers can be found here: http://www.simonborys.ca/2010/08/do-you ... r-3-years/

As I posted in another thread, there's 1 table for calculating fines based on speed for the purpose of the out of court fine on the Part 1 certificate and another for calculating the fine after trial.

Actually a complete lack of disclosure as was described above would probably be considered inadequate. Remember that the prosecution's constitutional obligation (per Stinchcombe) is to disclose anything that is not "clearly irrelevant". That applies to the content of documents, not just to the documents themselves. So for example, the prosecutor ...

The difference is that one is for the calculation of fines for speeding for the out of court amount indicated on a Part 1 certificate and the other is for the calculation of fines for speeding after a trial. I can't remember off hand which one is which.

lol ejadoo, only too true! unfortunately the courts rely on precedent to decide cases so in reality decisions are made by a few select judges and the rest follows or has to follow? I'm not sure if I judge can successfully rule against a precedent. thanks for the link

The referenced US case law has no bearing on Canadian judges. It's barely even ...

A radar reading must be fool proof to convict someone otherwise the advantage of doubt should go towards the accused.

That's not correct and that misconception is why there is so much discussion about this topic of the fallibility of radar devices. Proof to the level of absolute certainty is not required. All that is required is proof beyond a ...

The topic of "supporting documents" for the accuracy of the radar (i.e. calibration certificates, conformance documents, etc) has been discussed on this forum before. The thing you have to remember is that the crown is not required to prove the charge with absolute certainty. In other words, they don't necessarily need to prove that the device that ...

Mobile homes do have certain exceptions within the commercial vehicle scheme. For example,
s. 16(1)(a) - it is not a CMV for the purposes of s. 16 and s. 17-23.1
O/Reg 199/07 s. 1(1)(b) - s. 107 of the HTA does not apply to mobile homes, etc
O/Reg 611 - certain annual inspection provisions don't apply
etc, etc

I'm sure there is (or was at some ...

If you're talking about the 2 bound copies of the 11(b) Charter motion you serve one on the prosecutor but then you still have to file the other one with the court IN ADVANCE of the trial - not on the day of.

Moreover, they are not really supposed to know all by laws. The property management should put a no parking sign on the opposite side of the road. Doubt though there is a chance to negotiate with them about getting money back.

Actually, you are supposed to know all the by-laws. Ignorance of the law is not a defence in court, no matter how ...

I think you're misunderstanding entrapment. Without going into all the legal nuances of it, it is NOT entrapment per say to provide someone with the opportunity to commit a crime. For example, when an undercover officer approaches someone they have a suspicion is selling drugs and tries to buy from them, that is NOT entrapment, even though they've ...

Where the officer was parked has no impact on whether the offence of speeding can be proven in court. The answer to your second question is here: http://www.simonborys.ca/2010/04/does-a ... the-radar/

The risk of going to jail for drive suspend does not violate s. 7. All the SCC was saying in the BC MV case was that where there is a risk to liberty (where you can go to jail) it can't be for an absolute liability offence. THAT would be a violation of s. 7. As was said, drive suspend is NOT an absolute liability offence, it's strict.