Search found 1065 matches

You can apply yourself to reopen your case within 30 days of the conviction. You can give them the reasons you just provided here.

You cannot defer the suspension until later. I do not know if you can appeal one of the 30 day novice suspensions. Paying the $150 right now will have no effect on your licence, that only applies if you are unlicenced, whereas you are suspended.

Sounds to me like the more appropriate charge for you would have been turn not in safety. I suspect that you could plea the careless down to that. It may be difficult for them to prove careless on the facts you provided, so you may want to consider hiring a paralegal or lawyer to assist you with fighting the careless if you chose to go that route ...

There is no right to appeal (s. 48(9) of the HTA)

Also, even if you are charged by way of a part 1 ticket, once the trial commences, the set fines no longer apply. Then the provincial maximum of $500 applies. Set fines on Part 1 tickets are for out of court settlements only.

Normally people request disclosure and then make an appointment to meet with the crown to discuss a possible resolution.

The fine for expired plates is $110. It's the fine for no insurance is $5000. Having expired plates doesn't mean that your insurance isn't valid.

Just lucky.

In theory the owner can be charged with "permit operation of vehicle without insurance", which carries the $5000 fine. But that's only if there is actually no insurance on the vehicle.

It doesn't work that way. Without a traffic stop there's no way to determine who was driving at the time the vehicle was speeding, so how would the police know who to charge? They can't just charge the owner, except for a select number of offences, speeding not being one of them.

I'm not sure if a photo radar camera in the cruiser got my license plate down.

There's no such thing as an in car photo radar camera.

My friend told me I could face a $5000 dollar fine and license suspension because I was driving a car that was not insured under my name.

Your friend is wrong. The vehicle just needs to be properly insured. It ...

I don't know what his notes will say, but I would assume they will say the speed. Also, be advised that you cannot ask for the demerit points to be reduced. They are automatically assigned based on whatever speed your are convicted of or plea to.

You pick option 3 to declare your intent to fight the ticket. That assumes no deal is reached prior to that. You can meet with the prosecutor the morning of to try to work out a deal. You may also have the opportunity to meet with the prosecutor at an earlier date.

If you don't reach a deal at an earlier date then your final chance is to accept ...

jinx wrote:I requested my disclosure and it states i was doing 97 km/h.
Is this grounds for a adjournment

No. Why do you want an adjournment for this?

Your licence remains valid until you get convicted - then you may or may not be suspended. You don't get any demerit points until you are convicted.

The officer's notes may or may not have anything in there about passengers.

If the officer stopped you for speeding it will almost certainly be in his notes.

This sounds like a good charge to fight ...

The list you provided has a number of items that are redundant or just not applicable to your ticket. This is the problem when people use boiler plate disclosure requests from the internet. (I'm not blaming you if you didn't know any better, I'm just explaining.)

o a full copy of the police officers notes - you got that
o a copy of both sides of ...

If you wish to fight the ticket, go to the address on the back of the ticket and they will tell you what you need to do to get a court date. They can also advise you on what the procedure is for requiring disclosure in that jurisdiction.

You can chose to fight 1 or both of the tickets, but if you want to speak to the prosecutor either ticket, you ...

If the officer told you to bring your insurance and show the crown then the officer will not be ripping up the ticket. By that time it will be out of his hands. I think what he meant is that, if you show the crown that you had insurance, he may withdraw the ticket. But he's not doing you any special favours there, withdrawing one in exchange for a ...

The delay between the court date you just missed and you next one is attributable to you so it doesn't count for the purpose of 11(b). Only the time attributable to the crown or the system counts for that.

Did he tell you to come to the station to show him the correct insurance slip within a specified amount of time? or did he say to bring it to the prosecutor if/when you go to see him?

Just what happened - that you attended at the time you were told and they told you it was at a different time. Essentially it's an officially induced error.

So basically if you missed your trial you were convicted in abstentia under s. 9.1 of the Provincial Offences Act. Now you have to apply to reopen the case.

What did you get charged with and how did you get charged if you weren't the driver?

champdilse wrote: 3) I know conviction stays in my record for 2 years, but i have no demerit points so how would it show in my records?

It doesn't stay for 2 years. Read this

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

Personally I don't think what you've outlined is enough for a due dilligence defence, which is essentially what you're trying to argue. You're trying to say, "I did everything I could to avoid committing the offence." But I think the rebuttal to that is, "you could have done more - like go slower, be more observant, etc."

If he could have seen down the hill and see a car coming that might not be stopping then he would be at fault

I don't agree that this would have rendered the driver coming out of the driveway free of fault. At least not fault in terms of the HTA. The onus is still on the driver leaving the private driveway to NOT do so unless it can be done ...

You seem to be blurring the line between two distinct ideas of at fault under the HTA (i.e. committed an offence) and at fault per insurance fault rules.

With respect to at fault under the HTA, you are correct that it is an offence to leave a private driveway not in safety. I'd suggest that if there was a collision, that's evidence of the fact ...

Keroba wrote: Is there any other offence that has a varied fine, between what the Chief Justice's list says the set fine is, and the penalty prescribed in the Act that enumerates the offence?

No

One list is for ticket (i.e. out of court settlements), the other is for JP's to apply in court, after a trial. The table in the HTA is for JP's to use.

Stanton wrote:I believe you only have 15 days from the date of conviction to do so.

30 days actually - s. 135(2) POA