Search found 1065 matches

Follow up if you're so inclined. If trial comes and they still haven't provided disclosure, and you've made reasonable (i.e. several) attempts to obtain it, then you ask for an adjournment and get the reasons "on the record". Make sure the JP understands that this delay is the crown's fault, not yours (even though you're the one asking for the ...

The answer to that depends on who the prosecutor is. There's no way to say definitively what they will be like because everybody's different.

Not discarded, it's accepted and given whatever weight it's due, based on its merits. Which, as you've described it, sounds like none.

GIVEN 3 TICKETS -- 2 of em 325$ EACH and 3 points EACH

Looks to me like you were only given 2 tickets, since one was marked void - presumably the officer changed his mind on that one? At any rate you aren't being charged with no insurance. And the no licence charge has no points associated with it.

With respect to a defence for the red light ...

Unless an error prejudices your ability to make full answer and defence to the charge, it is not likely to be considered fatal.

The offence must be amended to something that is still supported by the events. For example, you couldn't plead a careless rear end collision to a parking offence because that's not supported by the events.

Also, with respect to the disclosure you will not likely get a stay of proceedings because you received the disclosure late or not at all ...

The witness box on the ticket is for when the crown needs a witness to prove the charge. It it's used when there are defence witnesses. As to losing sight of you, that is a problem for proving the charge only in so far as it prevents the officer from establishing who was driving at the time of the offence (in your case when the vehicle was being ...

From what you've described she has a defence to the charges - she wasn't driving. The difficulty for you will be how to prove that. Obviously you and her can both testify, but the officer presumably has some evidence for believing that she was, in fact, driving.

As a side note, regarding the impaired, she could have been potentially charged with ...

The section seems awkwardly worded around whether you can seize the vehicle and licence without laying a charge. Although it seems counter intuitive to do this without an accompanying charge, that appears to be exactly what the section allows you to do and I'm not aware of anything else in statute or common law which would prevent you from doing ...

It doesn't matter where you are or what you're doing, the law is the same: IF traffic can be affected, you must signal. Whether traffic could be affected in the situation you described is a question of fact and it depends on whether the officer charging in that situation could articulate how traffic was affected.

1) Officer doesn't have to show you the device. Read this: http://simonborys.wordpress.com/2010/04 ... the-radar/

2 & 3) Not relevant unless perhaps he lost sight of your vehicle sometime after clocking your speed and before pulling you over.

A number of people have posted on this forum recently stating that the officer told them they "had to" give them a ticket. I've replied to enough of these posts that I thought it would be worth it to write a blog post on this topic. You can read it below if you're interested.

http://simonborys.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/does-a-police-officer-ever ...

In my opinion a charter argument here would not succeed. Even if the reason you were stopped was the result of a mistake by a third party, it doesn't transform the stop into an arbitrary detention under s. 9. The officer was acting in good faith in the course of his duty to enforce the HTA.

Did you have a valid licence at the time?

You have no liability under the highway traffic act for any of his actions, nor the consequences of his actions (i.e. the fines). There are several charges of allowing something to happen, under the highway traffic act (like allowing a person to drive without insurance, allowing a person to drive without a licence, etc), but if you are not charged ...

You don't. They're non negotiable.

In addition to the delay, at least 10+ months of which has to be attributable to the crown or institutional delay, you have to be able to show how the delay prejudiced you as well.

if I call 911 reporting that I am following a vehicle that keeps weaving slowly in and out of it's lane , and has come close to side swiping a couple cars, would dispatch stay on the phone with me until a patrol vehicle catches up to the car?

Yes, that's likely what would happen. They would also tell you not to do anything unsafe (including ...

There is no "best way" to do anything in law. It always depends on the facts of your particular case. As was said above, you are facing some serious charges and a paralegal or lawyer would likely be able to assist you in figuring out how the law applies to your facts and what your best options are.

Sorry to give such a general answer, but you've ...

It's 2 CVOR points as well.

Stanton wrote:HTA, section 62, which covers the use of flashing red lights.

In addition to flashing red lights, red lights to the front (even if not flashing) are prohibited by s. 62(15)

Stanton wrote:The ticket wouldn't be sent by mail, unless it's from some type of automated red light camera fine.

I agree with everything you said but would just clarify that school bus charges can and often are sent to the owner by mail per Reg 468/05.
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o ... 68-05.html

In reality, probably nothing will happen. The person who deals with the call will likely run the plate and the owner to see who they are and at most they will call or stop by and say, "we received a complaint about whatever."

The only time they could lay a charge based on this kind of complaint is if the offence was in relation to failing to stop ...

I don't know what their procedures are in Toronto with respect to making disclosure requests, but you have no right to demand disclosure be mailed once it's available. If they say it has to be picked up, that's the way it is.

All issues regarding the duty to report as well as whether the defendant was could have/should have/or was going to report are irrelevant to this situation as the charge is fail to REMAIN, not fail to REPORT. Those are 2 completely different charges and the defendant here only has to defend himself against the former. Further, the charge can not be ...

The answer to #2 is no.

No that shouldn't matter. Also, don't bother talking to the clerk. Just make your disclosure request and deal with the rest of it in court.

There is no basis in law for saying that insurance of another province is automatically no longer valid if you've been out of that province for more than a month. Your insurance company may have canceled the insurance for that reason or there may be something in the insurance policy about that, but the officer would have had to verify that with the ...

Fully marked scout means fully marked scout car (i.e. police vehicle). This is of no consequence.

I think you're wasting time pursuing anything about the second officer. It's not uncommon for officers to go to the same location together to do selective enforcement. Each one is responsible for his own notes for the vehicles he stops. If you ask for ...

ottawa.newbie wrote:Also the Motor Accident Report claim me, the car that got hit DRIVER 2 and the other car who had hit mine DRIVER 1.

That's correct. The person who does the hitting is always Driver 1, the person who is hit is always driver 2. This has nothing to do with who is at fault, just which car struck which vehicle.