Search found 1065 matches

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 ...

If you want to take it to the extreme after a few Part 3 summons repetition of the offense becomes a valid issue and you are arrested and held for court. The vehicle is then seized under hta 217. The vehicle can then be ordered impounded by the JP. I have done this for driving under suspension.

But just so we're clear for the original poster ...

Does anyone have a link to the new PON form (front and specifically back) online?

Which Charter right would you be claiming has been violated in order to justify a stay? There has to be a Charter violation in order to trigger the Charter remedy of a stay.

If you actually get disclosure, it's not likely you can argue that your right to disclosure under s. 7 was violated, because you actually got it. At that point the remedy for ...

I've been stopped twice, the first time she gave me a $110 fine but put on my record that I had a medical condition so I wouldn't get any more fines.

There's no such thing as a record that an officer can note on that you have a medical condition so that you don't get any more fines. The bottom line is, if you have an expired sticker, you can and ...

You can always ask. It is open to the prosecutor to still honour the deal, but they don't have to. Often times the deal is off the table if you don't take it at the first appearance because then you've used up more of their time and resources, making them less inclined to give you a deal.

You can plead guilty at any point by paying the fine.

Well I don't think that's any different than any other section of the HTA, or any other provincial or federal statute that affords an officer a broad level of discretion. The onus is on the officer to justify how their use of that discretion is reasonable.

Yes but you have to read the whole section together. It says: "may take the vehicle into the custody of the law AND may cause it to be taken to and stored in a suitable place."

I'd argue that if it's in somebody's driveway it's not in "the custody of the law". To me this section clearly contemplates the officer seizing a vehicle AND THEN having it ...

But consider s. 221 of the HTA:

A police officer or an officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act who discovers a vehicle apparently abandoned on or near a highway or a motor vehicle or trailer without proper number plates may take the vehicle into the custody of the law and may cause it to be taken to and stored in a suitable ...

I agree with hwybear's comments above.

On this issue:

You would sue the police as you would sue anyone who abused you. Insofar as a traffic ticket, should an officer say assault you or cause you loss or injury at that time or threaten you or cause you distress etc you would have grounds to sue. I suspect many unjustified traffic tickets are ...

So guilty with an explanation just means you go before a JP, enter a plea of guilty and then give them your explanation with the hope that it will help the JP to justify reducing your fine. It's basically pleading guilty and then making submissions on sentence.

As to what exactly you'd say, I don't know because it depends on the circumstances of ...

Either way, any automobile driven on public roads needs insurance, no matter who owns it.

Yes, but does the vehicle ITSELF actually need to be ensured? If my policy for my own vehicles covers me in those vehicle and ANY OTHER VEHICLES I CASUALLY DRIVE, then I'd say there's no problem if I'm driving my friend's car which he doesn't have insurance ...

I'm with radar on this issue. I don't think you can say that the government has any equitable or legal title to your vehicle or other personal property. They agents of the state (the police) seize it on behalf of the government under clear statutory or common law authority. That's how they're able to do it, not because they "own" it in any sense ...

Just to clear up a few things in this thread:

1) It's unlikely that you'd ever be charged with the speeding offence because there's probably no way to prove who was driving (and a ticket has to be served personally on the driver) and, as Stanton pointed out, the red light camera system is not a photo radar system (which is the only way the owner ...

Even an expired licence can be suspended. At that point you could technically be charged with 2 offences - 1 for drive no licence (because it's unlicenced) and 1 for drive suspended (because it's suspended), but the Kienapple Principle in criminal law would, I believe, prohibit a conviction on both counts simultaneously. One would have to be stayed ...