Ontario Highway Traffic Act

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