Ontario Highway Traffic Act

She can request disclosure to see what evidence they have that will prove she hit another vehicle. If she wants to challenge that evidence she can do so at a trial.

There is no guarantee that the prosecutor will "waive" (withdraw) the insurance charge, regardless of what the officer said. That is often what happens, but the officer cannot bind the prosecutor to a course of action.

With respect to the stop sign charge the HTA just says that a vehicle must come to a complete stop. It doesn't say anything about ...

See my last post here: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic4412.html

If you showed up on the day you were summonsed to and the court was not prepared to proceed because they didn't have an information before the court, then they may have lost jurisdiction over you.

In that case, it would make sense that they are attempting to re-summon you.

I believe when a vehicle is seized in connection with a drive suspend charge it falls under the Repair and Storage Liens Act, which allows the garage to eventually take possession of the vehicle and sell it to reclaim their costs. Not sure how long before they can do that. You could review the RSL Act and also the HTA sections around 53 and on.

I have researched this issue further and here is some clarification:

Some services use Form 3 Provincial Offence Notices. Some services use Form 4. Both forms have changed, as of March 31, 2012. The new forms are valid as of that date. The old Form 4s are not valid at all any more, and the old Form 3s are only valid for 6 months (not 12 as I had ...

When I was pulled over the second time the police officer said he would put down as it was my first time .

I just want to clarify that there is no way for the officer to make it seem like a 2nd drive suspend is really a first. They charge you in the same way (Part 3 summons) for each drive suspend, regardless of whether it's your 1st or 10th and ...

That may be persuasive, but not definitive, since you don't have to actually be using the phone, just holding it.

They're not supposed to put any more value on the officer's testimony simply because they're an officer.

Quite right. Consider:

R v Graat: "The credit and accuracy of the police must be viewed in the same manner as that of other witnesses and in the light of all the evidence in the case. If the police and traffic officers have been closely ...

You did have a licence at the time, it was just expired. It's that expired licence that was suspended.

My main issue is that the officer issued me a ticket without telling me why he was issuing me a ticket.

Well the reason he gave you the ticket is presumably clear - because he believed you committed the offence. But I don't think not telling you why he was giving you the ticket is not a legal problem.

I understand you feel that you got the ...

It would be more efficient to try to have the charge withdrawn at a resolution meeting in advance. If the officer's notes support what you're saying that may not be a problem. If they don't the prosecutor may not believe you. Then you'll have to address it at a trial.

s. 10(a) of the Charter enshrines the right to be informed on arrest or detention of the reason. A traffic stop a detention. It's a justified detention under s. 1 (R v Hufsky (1988) SCC), but that doesn't relieve the officer of the obligation to inform the person of the reason for the stop.

The problem is, it's not clear what exactly the remedy is ...

Stanton wrote:http://www.ontariocourtforms.on.ca/engl ... -act-forms

Thanks.

FYI.
The municipality has to opt in to the early resolution program. The back of our PON's didn't change Option 2 at all.

It's not a question of opting in. The old forms remain valid until March 31, 2013.


If you're interested in seeing why that's the case, here it is:

O. Reg 108/11 (which is also s. 1(3) of O.Reg 462/11) says:

Despite the ...