Search found 1065 matches

Bear in mind that they to sustain those charges, they have to prove that a collision occurred (maybe not for the careless). You might want to obtain disclosure and see how they're going to do that. If it is just the word of the other driver vs. your word, with no damage to his vehicle, there might be something there to argue about.

Signs: O/Reg. 615

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/r ... g-615.html

The officer's evidence, like any witnesses, will be evaluated based on its own merits. Keep in mind that if the crown is going to proceed to a trial on careless, they have to prove that your driving constituted "without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway", which is not the easiest thing to ...

I'm just going to point out that you can't charge against the driver based on a school bus operator's report unless the operator knows who the driver is.

The fine for careless driving is now $490. $325 is the old fine.

The case R. v. Monahan et al., 2009 ONCJ 298 (CanLII), which can be found here: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2009/2009oncj298/2009oncj298.html states that an incorrect set fine means that the certificate is not complete and regular on its face and thus is subject to being ...

The bus driver can complain to the police and provide the licence plate of your vehicle. In that case, the police can charge the owner of the vehicle, using the bus driver as a witness to provide evidence of the offence in court (if there is a trial). At that point it becomes the bus driver's word vs. the word of the person who defends themselves ...

With regards to question #2: The court would probably consider the error you described to be minor, that is to say not negatively impacting your ability to make a full defence to the charge, and so would not be likely to quash the charges for those errors. The prosecutor could amend if necessary

The court would probably consider the errors you described about the name and address number to be minor, that is to say not negatively impacting your ability to make a full defence to the charge, and so would not be likely to quash the charges for those errors. The prosecutor could amend if necessary

With respect to notice, the prosecutor does ...

It's not that there is a specific prohibition against this, but officers don't do it as a matter of common sense if they can't prove the speed alleged. I don't think you have any recourse to get it quashed at first glance, but if you have a trial they will be required to prove that you were going 135 km/hr. If the officer's evidence is that you ...

An officer would measure and prove speed for a bicycle the same as for a motor vehicle - radar, laser, or pacing.

As to whether the definition of bicycle applies to a unicycle, you'd have to look at the definition in the bylaw which creates this offence.

Careless may be overkill, but it depends on the circumstances surrounding the incident. That being said, often careless driving tickets are reduced to something less in the case of single vehicle accidents (like fail to drive in marked lane, or something like that). In my opinion, the damage to property shouldn't have too much of an impact on the ...

Issue addressed extensively here.

http://simonborys.wordpress.com/2010/04 ... the-radar/

I know if I ask this to 3 different cops I'll get 3 different answers.

Of course. The reason being that the legislation is not clear. The 2 relevant sections of the HTA are 175 (11) and 175 (12).

(11) Every driver or street car operator, when meeting on a highway, other than a highway with a median strip, a stopped school bus that has its ...

Is there any law that dictates coming to an abrupt stop for small animals is legal/illegal depending upon the context of the situation?
No, the onus is on the driver of the following vehicle to maintain a safe distance, sufficient to allow them to respond even to an abrupt or unanticipated action.

Also, with the other driver knowing that I was ...

That should result in the ticket being quashed.

Your choices to deal with it are to speak to the prosecutor about it, take it to trial, or allow the prosecutor to try to enter a 9.1 conviction in your absence by failing to respond and hope the JP catches the error and quashes it. If they don't you'd have to appeal.

The 1st 2 choices are easier ...

That does often happen in situations like this. Or they reduce it to Drive No Licence.

Once a notice is generated and sent out it is because the licence is suspended at that time. I don't know why they say "may". Perhaps just on the off chance that you've corrected the issue between the time they sent the letter and the time you got it? But the 7 days only applies to how long after a notice has been sent out before a person is deemed ...

No. It really doesn't matter who issues the ticket to bring the action into court. All that matters is who shows up to give evidence. Consider this analagous to a criminal investigation. An officer witnesses something, turns it over to a detective who investigates and then lays a bunch of charges. What does it matter that the detective isn't going ...

Disclosure from the crown is the summary of the evidence they have against you which they will bring to trail. It usually includes copies of the officer's notes, a summary of the incident, statements from any witnesses, physical evidence, etc. You get that because it is your right under law.

On the day of your first appearance they will probably ...

On your first appearance date indicated on the ticket you will probably receive disclosure from the crown. If you bring in your ownership and proof of insurance (proof that you had insurance on the date you were stopped) you can speak to the crown and see what they are wiling to do about it. They should drop it on that day or at the next set date.

If you plead guilty with an explanation before a JP all they can do is lower the dollar amount of the fine in consideration of your circumstance and ability to pay. They can not withdraw or lower the charge. If that's what you're looking for you're going to have to seek a resolution meeting with the crown.

No paperwork = no ticket, unless he's planning on sending you a summons later.

You might consider applying for disclosure to see what evidence the officer is going to bring against you if it goes to court. If you feel that they have insufficient evidence to support careless you could consult a lawyer or paralegal for assistance, or challenge it yourself in court.

The likelihood of success in fighting your tickets will depend on the merits of your particular case. The fact that it was not your vehicle will have no bearing on this however, so there's no need to factor that in to your decision.

I've answered this question a number of times recently, so I'm just going to state it officially: having 24 hours to produce your insurance card at the police station after getting a ticket is a myth!

You can read more about it on my latest blog post here:
http://simonborys.wordpress.com/2010/09 ... ance-card/

If you're talking about driving disqualified as opposed to driving suspended that's a criminal matter and somewhat outside the scope of this forum. I will say that a custodial sentence usually refers to jail time. If that is what you're facing you should definitely be retaining legal counsel to assist you.

If you are not going to be there you should send her with a signed letter which should say something like:

I, ______, give ________ permission to act on my behalf in Provincial Offences Court in relation to PON#___________.

That's all it needs to say.

A part 3 summons? If so, your first attendance date on the face of the certificate will be for you to receive disclosure and set a next date. You will not have to enter a plea until the trial.

New article from MSN Auto on How to Defend Yourself in Traffic Court, featuring yours truly!

http://autos.ca.msn.com/editors-picks/g ... d=25643601

Correct. The distinction is the 2 different offences.