Search found 1065 matches

I think the delay in this case because of why the officer couldn't be there could be considered neutral delay and not necessarily attributable to the crown.

I would suggest that a lawyer may be more appropriate than a paralegal, unless they really know what they're doing. This area of law (voluntariness/exclusion of statements) is rapidly evolving and there is recent appellate case law on the topic that it is important to understand. It's not as simple as "if you weren't cautioned then the charges will ...

Yep, Licence Appeal Tribunal: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/ ... l#tribunal

It's true that there is no set fine on a Pt 3, but that doesn't mean the potential fine has no upper limit. s. 61 of the POA says that where there is no set fine the max is $5,000. I realize this may be of little comfort...

Generally the timeline in an 11(b) breaks down into
1) inherent or intake time - the time between when you get charged and when you file your notice of intention to appear
2) delay attributable to the prosecution - be prepared to say how many days you think this is and why
3) delay attributable to the defence - be prepared to accept any delay you ...

Remember, you only need a name on your CMV if it's gross registered weight is over 18,000 lbs (or 8181.81 kg). See O/Reg. 587(8)(g). Don't ask my why they switch between lbs & kg in the Act and the regs.

When you are arraigned at trial the trial the court clerk reads your charge: "You are charged, on or about the xx day of [month] in the City of [blank] in the said region, did commit the offence of..."

The crown has to prove that you did it "on or about" that date. The precise time is not really relevant unless it somehow goes to your defence that ...

If the officer didn't/doesn't interview the witness, the defence (you or your lawyer/paralegal) can. If the officer doesn't have the person's contact information that you provided anymore then you might be apply to apply for a stay under s. 24(1) for the Charter. This is the type of situation where it would be beneficial for you to have a lawyer or ...

I have Niewiadomski but can't post it to this site because it's not jpg. Can a moderator add it to this thread?

Speeding, to wit more than 50 km/hr over the limit is absolute liability, just like speeding under 50 km over the limit. Stunt driving going more than 50 over the limit is an strict liability offence per R v Raham. No, that doesn't make sense. This is ripe for a constitutional challenge to bring the 2 offences in line one way or the other.

hwybear wrote: The ways to search are:
1) an Act with search authorities (LLA, HTA, FWCA etc...
2) search warrant
3) consent to search (which is more than verbal asking, there is "consent to search forms that is signed by the driver")

There's also common law authority to search - i.e. incident to arrest or detention.

Sure, for obvious reasons, as you suggested, it's going to be done. I'm just saying it doesn't HAVE to be. Does this distinction make a difference? In practice, probably not, but I'm sure there's a situation where it could.

Two thoughts:

1) Charging someone with additional charges to "teach them a lesson" for exerting their right to a trial would be an abuse of process under s. 24(1) of the Charter. The remedy, if it was proven, would be to stay the charges.

2) Who has time to draw up a long form summons for an additional charge of speeding?? That's the reason why ...

This is an OCJ case, however it is an appellate level case - being an appear of the decision of a Justice of the Peace. This case should be binding on Justices of the Peace who operate in traffic court's in the entire province. It is only persuasive on other courts of the same level - those being judge's of the OCJ hearing other POA appeals on this ...

To be clear, speeding less than 50 km/hr over the limit is absolute liability. Speeding more than 50 km/hr over the limit is strict liability. This area is ripe for a constitutional challenge. If you have $10,000 or $20,000 you could do it

So I pay my fines, my reinstatement and Im good to go! Fantastic

Thanks so much.


No, I'm not saying you're good to go. There may be other problems than just a suspension due to unpaid fines. I'm just saying that when you get your suspensions cleared up (whether they are due to unpaid fines or other), then you still have to remember to attend ...

darshan.4 wrote:For something like this a paralegal is requesting $1000. Is that normal?

That's high, in my opinion.

Just remember that after your fines are paid off you are not licenced again, you are just not suspended. You still have to pay the $150 reinstatement fee at the Driver's Licencing office.

Re #1: you are correct, without signage it defaults to 50/80

Re #3: I don't know if there is any case law on officially induced error with respect to speed signage, there's just the generic case law which sets out the defence, which you would then argue applies to this situation. This is not a simple matter to argue and I would suggest you contact ...

If you don't show up there will not be a trial, which means there will be no opportunity to amend the certificate to the higher amount. If you don't show up there will be a conviction under s. 9.1 of the POA for what is on the ticket.

Lahiry doesn't change the time frames, it basically just says that not every day from the time you set a trial date is institutional delay. There is a certain period of time that is required for the defence to be ready to actually go after a trail date is set and that time is not institutional.

To clarify, if you set a trial date today and the 1st ...

they WILL show up as its extra money in there pockets

Not necessarily. Most traffic court is booked on the officers day shifts, which means they're already being paid to be there, it's not extra money.

Also, even if it is overtime, they don't show up because of the money, they show up because they are obligated to do so - it being part of their ...

#1 why do you think that a speed limit is not in effect unless there's a sign for it? That's just incorrect.

#2 I'm not sure how much traction you'd have with a 60 year old case from the UK. If the JP didn't agree with the reasoning, they'd just say they weren't bound by it, which they're not.

#3 If the actual posted signage was wrong at the time ...

Police are not "obligated" to give you the breathalyzer if you admit to consuming. Like everything else, that is discretionary.

syntst wrote:assumptions have no standings in court.

Actually, they do. Judges often have to assume things to be true when they make findings of fact. Judges are also entitled to draw reasonable inferences from those assumptions/facts.

Remember, the standard required is not one of absolute proof.

Here's my article: http://www.simonborys.ca/2010/04/do-pol ... f-tickets/

That's what I think as well: there is a conviction, but it's suspended. I understand there is no fine, what I don't know though is if the demerit points got applied and most important if it goes on my record and so my insurance would go up.


If you received a suspended sentence (i.e. $0 fine) then there is a conviction, just no punishment. It is ...

You could do a freedom of information request or even a vulnerable sector records check with Peel and see what comes up. Both will cost you.

It would be unethical of a prosecutor to allow you to plead guilty to an offence that wasn't supported on the facts. When you hear about people pleading to different offences it is (or should be) because the offence they are now pleading to is ALSO supported on the facts that gave rise to the original charge. For example, running a red light and ...

Recovery of costs is by way of a Costs Application to the court. Generally this would be submitted along with any other materials for your appeal and would be heard then, or adjourned to a later date to be heard separately if time didn't permit the appeal and the application to be heard at once.

In your case it sounds like the appeal is over. I'm ...