Search found 1065 matches

I don't understand what you are saying. If your argument is that you didn't know it expired on your birthday, that you thought it expired at the end of the month, that is not a defence. That is all there is to it.

If the JP doesn't show up there's no one to adjourn the matter.

You should be able to appeal on the grounds that you never received notice of the new court date.

Val tags for plates registered to individuals expire on that person's birthday. Val tags for plates registered to businesses expire at the end of the month in which they registered it. Sorry.

Presumably he has some reason for believing that's what happened, whether it was from you or someone else, but that's something you can ask if it goes to trial.

First, an officer NEVER has to charge you when there's an accident. They do it because they feel, often rightly so, that when there's a collision a ticket is warranted. That being said, it is often difficult to prove the charge of careless when it's used as a catch all charge, because the prosecutor needs to prove that you were driving "without due ...

First the violation written by the officer lists my Given name as one of my last names and my Family name as my second last name. My true Given and middle name were omitted by the officer. I am going to attempt to have the proceeding quashed on the ground that the information bears a fatal flaw -- no Defendant's name.

I don't think most JP's ...

I did make a legal left turn and then quickly entered the right lane because I had to get into the plaza for blood work and a doctor's visit.

If that's what happened then that's your defence. If you refuse to take a deal because you believe you are not guilty of an offence, then you go to trial and you say just that. As with every case, the JP ...

You don't necessarily get the charges stayed just because your trial came and you didn't have disclosure yet. You usually ask for disclosure again at that point and the JP orders the crown to disclose and the case gets adjourned.

141(3) is the section for improper RIGHT turn

If the witness is the one who is going to supply the evidence proving identity, then he needs to attend court to give that evidence. The officer can not relay it, that's hearsay. If ANY party is going to be giving evidence at a trial there needs to be a disclosed witness statement in disclosure.

Am I right to be a little ticked?

With respect, no. I can appreciate that you're upset about the officer's lack of discretion in a situation that you, and probably many people, would consider warranted discretion, but nothing the officer did was improper. From what you described, you committed the offence, however briefly, and were ticketed from ...

A couple points on the original post:

1) Both the crown and the officer were wrong, the maximum find you're looking at under a part 1 prosecution if it goes to trial is $500. The set fine is irrelevant - once it goes to trial the penalty is entirely in the hands of the JP, subject to statutory minimums and maximums - the maximum in this case being ...

I don't think 10 months is going to cut it, especially since the time between the date they offered in Feb and the one you got at the end of March is arguably attributable to you and not the crown.

Set fine is the same everywhere. You can find it here http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/ocj/en/s ... /index.htm

London v Young still stands. It has not been overruled.

It is not only possible but probable that they will try you on 91. Street v Road is not going to get you off.

Incorrect fine may be grounds for having the ticket quashed. See comments on London v. Young on this board.

No points for 13 over. Cross street is irrelevant.

JayLeno wrote:is there anything I can do to deduct less points?

No. The points are automatically added to your licence upon conviction.

Depends on your insurance company, but in my experience people aren't canceled for that.

If it is as you say and they can't prove the charge then I don't think they'll proceed with the trial. Why would the prosecutor do so if he has no evidence to call? What's he going to do when the trail starts? Most likely though, if they proceed to trial, the prosecutor will have what he feels is enough evidence. You can ask for a dismissal ...

I think it depends on how the trial plays out. Here we have a situation where a person has evidence and, for a number of reasons, doesn't want to attend court and give it. As stated above, he is compelled to attend court, under threat of warrant.

A charge of fabricating evidence would be applicable to a situation where a person didn't have ...

It is entirely possible for the officer to pace you at 135. Also, I think his driving is irrelevant to your charge. I think the JP will see it that way too.

From what you've described it seems this case turns on whether the officers can prove that you were the one driving the bike they saw "racing". If no traffic stop was conducted and there's no notes explicitly stating how else the came to believe it was you, I don't see how they can.

You ought to plan what your grounds will be for the motion before hand. Errors on the collision report are not sufficient.

Breach of condition of a novice licence is a catch-all charge under s. 32(9). It can be applied to any condition (i.e. driving at the wrong hour, on a highway with a G1, no accompanying driver, alcohol, etc). The advantage of this is that the insurance company doesn't know it's alcohol related. This is good for you, though they'll likely still ding ...

No date is usually considered a fatal error.

I think there are some situations where road conditions can amount to a due dilligence defence. If can establish that you were driving appropriately for the circumstances and you encountered a road condition or other situation that was essentially unforseeable, and you did everything you could, you may be able to establish the defence. I think the ...

Of course you can go to court and fight it...but I'm wondering on what grounds? From what you described, you were speeding and you got a ticket. For what reason should you not be held legally responsible? If you can answer that, you'll know what to say in court.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. It's not about "what defences are available to me", it's "I'm not actually guilty because..." or "I should be held legally responsible because..." and when you can finish either of these sentences you will have your answer as to what defence, if any, is appropriate to use. Looking for defences that don ...