Search found 1065 matches

Does the missing section # severely prejudice your ability to make a proper defence to the charge? I would suggest it does since it prevents you from looking up the section #. If it severely prejudices your ability to make a proper defence it should be considered a fatal error.

I would direct you to O/Reg. 613.

10. Wh ere a motor vehicle manufactured without seat belt assemblies for each seating position and not modified so that there is a seat belt assembly for each seating position is driven on a highway,

(a) the driver is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (2) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if ...

Improper passing of a school bus is considered a major violation by the Insurance Bureau of Canada. Because of the complexity of calculating insurance premiums, no one but your insurance company can tell you how a conviction will affect your rates. However improper passing of a school bus is in the same category with failing to report an accident ...

The other big difference is that with a Part III summons there is no set fine amount, as there is with a ticket. Some offences, like Fail to Remain are automatically Part III, as they have no set fine, but if you are issued a summons for a fine that normally has a set fine, such as Improper Turn, the set fine does not apply under a Part III. In all ...

I think the definition of heavy vehicle includes heavy truck.

However, given the discrepancies amongst the definitions and the lack of a clear definition in the HTA, you may want to consider taking it to trial and forcing the crown to prove that you met the definition of heavy truck that the sign was referring to. Remember that the onus is on them ...

Rates are affected by conviction type (minor, major, and serious). 15 over falls in the minor category so it can affect your insurance.

Found it for Mississauga. Heavy truck is greater than 3000kg gross weight.

http://www.mississauga.ca/file/COM/traf ... itions.pdf

somenewguy wrote:Officer put a warning and gave me 3-4 demerit points but i wasn't given a ticket

Impossible. You can't get demerit points without a conviction for an offence.

I believe the definition of heavy truck is synonymous with commercial motor vehicle (GW or RGW over 4500 kg), unless otherwise specified by by-law. I'm not sure though. I will post here if I can find a more concrete answer.

Section 139(1) of the HTA applies here.

139. (1) Every driver or street car operator entering a highway from a private road or driveway shall yield the right of way to all traffic approaching on the highway so closely that to enter would constitute an immediate hazard. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 139 (1).

I can see the insurance company's point of ...

The officer has to have reasonable grounds to lay the charge. Reasonable grounds can be formed by his own observations or by receiving credible and specific information form a third party (a witness) which lays out the elements of the offence.

For a charge to proceed in this manner, the officer would have had to have spoken to the witness before ...

With regards to the pages being from apparently different manuals, I don't think that's going to be grounds for insufficient disclosure. I think the prosecutor is going to say you have the testing information, which is all you were entitled to...who cares where it came from.

I think you would have to show that there was some reason to believe this ...

I understand your frustration with regards to not knowing why you need it because you don't know what it is, but that's the way disclosure works. The crown discharges its duty to disclose everything it feels is relevant and it's up to you to articulate why (and what) you don't think is sufficient.

For example, say the officer stops you at 1625 ...

hab-fan wrote:Was or is there not something in the Act that permits you to produce the documents at the station in a short order of time that would make this allgo away ?

No. That's a myth.

I'm not going to suggest any specific questions, but what I can say is that if you go into court and admit that you were speeding, but say you weren't going as fast as the officer alleges, you will be convicted and at the speed you were charged at. I have seen it happen numerous times.

The JP in their summary usually refers to the fact that the ...

If the crown decides to amend the charge to a different charge that carries less demerit points, you will be convicted of that charge and receive the points for that charge. However, the points are still automatically assigned for whatever charge you are convicted of. For example, you can not be convicted of careless and receive anything less than ...

I have not had an opportunity to review the pictures, but what I'm saying is that you will not have the opportunity to bring up new evidence that adds to your defence at an appeal. The appeal is for when you claim that the judge has made an error in law, not becasue you want a do over.

That is not a fatal error, it can be ammended at trial.

Points are 2 years from offence date, conviction is 3 years from offence date.

The errors you described can be amended at a trial by the prosecutor.

It needs to be tested "as per the manufacturers instructions", which depends on the model. This is why some people request the manuals for the unit that was used.

The template probably refers to a sheet officers use when doing a lot of speed enforcement at one spot. It allows them to record all the necessary information for each ticket in one place rather than over pages and pages in their notes. Then they just have to keep and use that for court.

In order to get a statement in they would have to hold a ...

You're probably not going to get that. You'd have to show that it has some value beyond probative to your ability to make a full defence.

What are the circumstances surrounding this where it's relevant when the CPIC inquiries were done?

kelly wrote:I was going to take option 2, seeing a Justice Of The Peace but I read that they can't reduce the demerit points. How do I go about reducing the points to zero?

You don't. The points are administratively assigned to your licence if you are convicted of the offence. No one has discretion over them.

The wording "in charge of a vehicle" has the same meaning as "care or control".

It includes "present physical custody" and "circumstances where the person has only recently and temporarily relinquished physical custody" (i.e. someone who was driving but exits the vehicle and walks away) (see R. v. Richards 1999 – Ontario Court of Appeal)

POT = Provincial Offences Ticket

a.k.a. PON (Provincial offences notice)

It's not the officer's notes unless it's referring to notes he wrote on the back of the ticket.

There is no problem with writing something like that to indicate that it is a bicycle.

You will still receive demerit points because a bicycle is a vehicle under the HTA and red light applies to vehicles, not just motor vehicles.

There is something strange about this officer – he was wearing a yellow jacket (forgot to ask about that at the trial)

The officer was a police officer. Yellow jackets are usually for officers on bicycle patrol but sometimes officer wear them other times because they are a nice light rain jacket.

Also can I win if the officer is parked ...

Agreed, non compliant drivers and vehicles need to be taken off the road and I hope that plate recognition setup the OPP was or is testing works out.

Just FYI, the plate recognition systems that exist now only compare the plates it reads to a BOLO list. The list is updated maybe every hour, but it only includes stolen vehicles or crime ...

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2010/2010oncj192/2010oncj192.html

R v. Batenchuk is an interesting case from earlier this year. I haven't had a chance to review it yet, but the summary I received from the Law Times indicates that it involves some very detailed requests for disclosure from accused relating to breathalyzer equipment operation ...