Search found 1065 matches

You can file an appeal of the ticket and indicate the reason why you're doing so (i.e. missed the date). I don't know if that will be accepted as a reason to reopen the ticket, but I believe that's how you'd go about doing it. You can ask at the courthouse for the form to appeal.

That's actually a really interesting situation. s. 142(1) yields 2 charges: change lane not in safety and fail to signal. With respect to change lane, all it really says is "The driver...before turning...from one lane for traffic to another lane for traffic...shall first see that the movement can be made in safety". So the offence is made out if ...

Also, if you pass the stop line and ENTER the intersection when the light is red, it doesn't matter whether you stopped before exiting the intersection, it's the passing the stop line on the red that constitutes the offence - if that's what happened in your case...I wasn't clear on that from reading your post.

It's got nothing to do with the officer anymore. You could try calling the court and asking them to confirm that the ticket is not on the system. If it's not, ask them how you go about getting your money back.

An old trespassing ticket and insurance card ticket will have no bearing on your current situation.

I don't think you're hurting your case by accepting disclosure in the morning. It's no more reasonable for the court to expect you to review it before court than it is for them to expect you to do it during a court recess. If the disclosure is only available the day of, you can likely expect to get an adjournment (at the crown's expense) out of it.

1) Doesn't matter where you were stopped, police officers have the authority to act anywhere in Ontario.
2) If you believe the officer couldn't see you properly, then just tell the JP that and explain why you believe that to be the case.

It's not the JP's decision whether or not there will be a deal. That is between you and the prosecutor. You can schedule a resolution meeting with them before the next set date (if there's time) or meet with them the morning of to discuss a plea, if that's what you'd like to do.

That's the correct set fine for 22 over on a ticket (out of court settlement). The other table is what the fine would be if assessed by a JP on a finding of guilty in court.

Stanton wrote:a radar reading isn't necessary. The officer can still give evidence in regards to your speed compared to other cars and traffic and how you were driving.

Just so people don't get confused, this is the case for careless, not for speeding offences - those need an actual speed measurement.

I agree with Stanton. Dealer or personal insurance covers the vehicle, whether plated or unplated, on the road or off the road, etc. Also, as he said, only the owner can be charged with operating a vehicle without insurance. Further, the section for that is 2(1)(a), not 2(1)(1) (there is no such section), so I'm not sure what's going on there. I'd ...

You will probably get all relevant information.

Romes wrote:What are my chances?

Chances of what? An acquittal? You haven't provided any info to judge that on.

Also, what was the fine you got for 22 over?

You can request an adjournment as soon as the proceeding commences. When you get called up the JP will ask what's going on with the case (i.e. is it proceeding, being withdraw, adjourned, etc) and you can just say that your requesting an adjournment in order to give the crown time to provide disclosure. It is probably a good idea to speak with the ...

To prove this charge the officer needs to be able to establish that your turn was unsafe. Without evidence of a collision this is more difficult, but not impossible, to do. If you get disclosure you will be able to see how the officer articulated the basis for the charge in his notes. Then you, or your legal representative if you chose to retain ...

CindyP wrote:Is it possible to say his detection device was faulty???

You can say it, but it will only be given as much weight as you can put behind it with some kind of direct or circumstantial evidence (or inference).

Read this article I wrote here on quotas: http://simonborys.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/do-police-officers-have-a-quota-of-tickets/

You'll see that there really isn't any but sometimes there is an expectation for officers to write a certain number of tickets. If that's what the officer was doing it may explain why he didn't use his discretion to give ...

In most jurisdictions usually longer than 1.5 - 2 weeks.

Call your courthouse and ask. Different jurisdictions do administrative things differently. # should be on the back of the ticket.

What was the basis for the acquittal? Other people reading this should be aware that it's not that you weren't the driver, since that is not required for a conviction.

Officers usually don't issue tickets which they think you can beat and then tell you to go fight it so you will win. (If so there'd be little point in writing the ticket in the first place). They usually issue tickets that they feel are justified, which they could obtain a conviction on if it went to trial. They often tell you to go to court ...

Sorry...I know you knew it too

s. 9.1

No points. Officer can seize disabled parking permit which is being "improperly used". There is no set fine for the charge of improperly using a disabled parking permit so if you are being charged (I'm unclear whether the officer did charge you or not) it will be by way of a summons with a court date.

The judge can't take off the points. They are administratively added by the MTO after a conviction is registered. So you automatically get the number of points associated with the speed you are convicted of. If it's 18 over you'll get 3. If you can get it reduced by the crown to 15 over, you'll get 0 points.

The questions asked are essentially irrelevant to the offence you are charged with. The officer had the authority at the RIDE stop to demand your licence and then check its validity. This is what he did, albiet there was a lot more that went on, but non of that negated his right to check your licence status. Further, the evidence of your licence ...

It really comes down to whether, if you are charged, the officer can articulate to the judge how whatever cover you had "obstructed" the plate. That's going depend on a case by case assessment of the cover, the officer's ability to articulate, and the JP's willingness to accept. There are no hard and fast rules to give you an answer here.

I agree with Stanton with respect to the Summons. It is the information itself that you'd be looking for errors on in that case. In the case of Part I offence notices, that document IS the information, so that's why you are concerned with errors on it.

I think it might clear things up to state that a fatal error will always result in the ticket ...

I don't know what "fatal error rules" you're referring to, but, as I said, anything that prejudices your ability to make full answer and defence is usually considered a fatal error, which makes sense if you think about it. In my experience, fatal errors would be things like no date, wrong or missing act or section number, no defendant listed, no ...

I agree with Stanton - it's not actually the points that drive your insurance up, it's the conviction itself, so even a conviction with no points may increase your insurance. It really depends on your insurance provider and their policies.

Also, just to be clear, I'm not a lawyer yet, just a law student, so don't take anything I say to be legal ...