Ontario Highway Traffic Act

I've never heard of anyone using a monopod.

You have mentioned both radar and lidar in your post so I'm not sure which one it was, but I'm guessing lidar because you said he targeted your vehicle specifically on the front plate. You can only do this with a lidar because it has a scope with a crosshair. If this is the case, I don't see how you're going to successfully argue that he targeted ...

Regardless, the fine is wrong, which should result in it being quashed. If you bring it to the prosecutor's attention they may just withdraw the ticket, eliminating the need for you to have to show up in court and ask the JP to quash it. I guess it also gives them the opportunity to issue you a corrective summons for the charge, but I really don't ...

Just to clarify, your meeting is with the prosecutor, not the JP.

If that's the case it should probably be quashed. You can bring it up with the prosecutor before the trial and see what they say. If their answer is not to your liking you can try to convince the JP that the ticket should be quashed.

Motor vehicle involved means whether the defendant was using a motor vehicle to commit the offence. It doesn't refer to other vehicles. So if you got an HTA ticket for speeding or valtag, etc, it would be checked. If you got a trespassing or public intox ticket, it wouldn't be. If it's wrong in either case, it's not a fatal error.

It's not that he needs to believe you over the officer - that's probably not going to happen. All you need is for the JP to find you credible as well, then apply the test outlined in R. v WD and hopefully find that there is reasonable doubt. Basically WD allows the JP to acquit based on reasonable doubt without saying they disbelieve the officer ...

Depends on what arguments you intend to make but at minimum there should be enough in the package for the crown to prove the elements of the offence: that a motor vehicle was being driven on a highway, that you were ID'd as the driver, that the officer saw your vehicle, believed you were speeding and used the radar to confirm, that the radar was ...

It's almost like it's his word versus mine and he has me beat because the other individual isn't there.

Not almost - it's exactly like that!

All you can do is present your evidence and be firm if that's what you believe happened. Other evidence like light cycle times is irrelevant because you can't prove what it was then by what it is now.

If ...

I tend to agree with you. I don't think the date they're stamped with when they're handed in is the "filed date". I think the "filed date" is when the court receives it and "files" it by entering it onto the ICON system. Run with it and let us know how it turns out.

Basically just what you said, the van was going too slow, you passed when it was safe to do so. In order to pass the van safely since the other car was oncoming you had to accelerate and that put you over the limit, after which you slowed down again.

Not sure but I'm interested to hear what comes of this.

The officer used his discretion to issue the other driver a warning and he decided to give you a ticket for it. That certain is unfortunate for you, but here's nothing improper about that.

The officer's assertion that you were going fast or accelerating through the intersection is not improper either. He is not saying you were speeding or that you ...

Well I don't think that the fact that you've already got 3 points is a mitigating factor, if anything I'd say it's an aggravating factor.

However, if you show up prepared to take responsibility for your actions and don't make excuses, they'll probably offer you a reduction. If they don't, you always have the option of going to trail and forcing ...

As I said, it all comes down to discretion and articulation