Ontario Highway Traffic Act

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 ...