Search found 2111 matches

Again, it's an exemption, not a separate charge.

Here's a recent decision in regards to 144(18) where they cite 144(19). You'll note the driver was charged under 144(18) for making a right on a red and found guilty.
http://canlii.ca/en/on/oncj/doc/2011/2011oncj215/2011oncj215.html

You can try and research additional case law that supports your ...

I think youd be best consulting with a paralegal. They could review the case for possible defences or more likely work out a plea deal.

I personally dont think your reasoning is a valid defence. If someone is riding on your bumper speeding up is the last thing you want to do. If youre concerned about your safety youd either want to gradually slow ...

No, it's definitely the correct section. As you said, you were charged for failing to stop for a red light which is subsection 18. It doesn't matter if you're going left, right or straight through, it all falls under the same subsection if you don't stop. Subsection 19 is an exemption (basically saying you won't be charged) for right turns, but ...

If the officer believes you failed to stop, section 144(18) is correct. While subsection 19 allows you to make a right turn after stopping on a red, the actual offence of failing to stop falls under subsection 18. The only time I can think of when you'd be charged under subsection 19 is if you made a proper stop, but proceeded without yielding to ...

if you didn't hit anyone? why were you given the careless driving charge

A collision isn't required to lay the charge. If the officer observed the combination of no lights, no seatbelt and unsafe turn, I think the argument could be made the OP was driving without due care and attention.

The lack of collision will probably help in getting a plea ...

No, plea deals are almost always to a similar, related offence. I've never heard of them being dropped to a parking offence.

You'll want to talk with the Crown prior to the start of your trial, see if they're willing to offer you a plea deal to a less serious charge.

One that comes to mind is "Leave roadway - Not in Safety", 142(1) HTA. Only carries 2 demerit points and would have a much less serious impact on your insurance rates.

1) I don't believe the Courts would accept your leg injury as a valid reason. The onus would be on your wife to drive more slowly if abrupt stops cause you pain.
2) If you can convince the Courts you didn't have sufficient time/distance to stop at the stop line, that would be a good defence..
3) I don't think it's an issue to represent her and take ...

They wouldn't amend the charge until the actual start of trial. You have nothing to lose by filing your notice of intent and requesting disclosure. You don't actually have to proceed with the trial, you can plead guilty at the last minute.

No, errors on the notice to trial aren't relevant, only the ticket itself.

The actual offence would fall under the Criminal Code.

Personating peace officer

130. (1) Everyone commits an offence who
(a) falsely represents himself to be a peace officer or a public officer; or
(b) not being a peace officer or public officer, uses a badge or article of uniform or equipment in a manner that is likely to cause persons to ...

You can obtain a copy of the accident report through the police service. There's typically a fee for this however, which is why it's best to get it through your insurance provider if possible.

The notes are surprisingly clear compared to most that need to be deciphered.

- Followed from Bloor Street on-ramp to southbound Don Valley Parkway.
- Gets on westbound ???
- In lane 2, speeds up to 124 km/hr
- Locked front antenna (meaning your speed was obtained with radar)
- At time of reading, officer's speed was 110 km/hr, at a distance of ...

It's covered by section 139 of the HTA, which as Reflections said only requires you to yield. The only exception is traffic lights, which are legally enforcable even from private roadways.

I'm thinking you were given a suspended sentence. You were found guilty, but there is no fine.

That particular option 2 is something new that's being offered in certain jurisdictions. My understanding is that you can still plead not guilty, but you simply have the option to meet with the Crown first. You'll most certainly get a plea deal offer to a reduced speed, so if that's what you want I'd suggest booking the first attendance meeting.

Unfortunately it has nothing to do with the validity of your Alberta licence. The suspended Ontario licence trumps any out of Province licence. It may help strengthen a defence argument of you being unaware of the suspension, but I'm not sure how far that will get you in Court.

If you have the time, I'd certainly try a first attendance meeting ...

If you're convicted of an offence in Ontario, an Ontario driver's licence number is generated. Basically even if your out of Province licence is valid, you'd still be suspended in Ontario until your fines are paid. This allows Ontario a means of ensuring there is incentive for out of Province drivers to pay fines if they ever plan on returning ...

The 7 day suspension won't apply, as you weren't charged in Ontario. The speeding charge itself however will result in Ontario applying demerit points (6 points for 50+ over in Ontario). As a G2 driver any 4+ point offence results in a 30 day suspension upon conviction. Therefore I believe if you're found guilty, even in Quebec, your Ontario ...

It's some creative thinking, but I don't think the OPP's use of the aircraft would qualify as commercial air service. The OPP aren't ferrying passengers or requesting compensation for their services.

They may have obtained your speed prior to you noticing them and looking at your speedo. In terms of radar accuracy, the device itself is still 100% accurate at night, but it does offer a possible defence of arguing it's harder to identify vehicles in the dark. And as IFly said, you have to determine what device they were using. Were the officers ...

I think it would be pretty hard to argue he wasnt aware of the suspension if he failed to pay his fines. Might be worth consulting with legal representation if the Crown isnt willing to offer a deal. As for the past tickets, they can be reopened, but only with good reason. Again, simply forgetting about them probably wont be considered sufficient ...

No, you're still required to provide your driver's licence even if you identify yourself by another means. Technically if you refused to surrender your licence AND identify yourself, you could be charged under both sections. All that section 33(3) basically says is that even if you don't have your licence with you, you still have to identify ...

1) Yes, points are assigned based on what you're convicted for, not what the original ticket says.
2) Really your decision. Depends how much time/effort it's worth to you and also on the Crown's evidence.
3) A couple minor offences will typically raise your rates, but less dramatically then a major conviction. Really depends on your provider/policy ...

The Justice of the Peace cannot lower the charge or get rid of demerit points. All they can do is offer a reduced fine if there is justification. Any type of plea deal must be arranged with the Crown attorney. They can sometimes offer you a plea to a less serious charge, but I cant think of any that would apply in your situation. Demerit points are ...

Id suggest contacting the officer and seeing if he can provide you with the second DL number. Im not sure why hed be able to locate it but the MTO cant. Easiest way to see if a second DL was generated at the time of your accident is to see if the conviction shows on your abstract.

The officer may simply go by the date/time on the ticket itself. As for your defence, you'll have to simply try to clearly articulate to the Court what you said here. You observed the officer, who you believed to be preoccupied and made sure that it was a full stop.

I think now more than ever its very easy to monitor police productivity with computer aided dispatch systems and GPS tracking. You can probably get a very good idea of what officers are doing with their time. Unfortunately I think ticket numbers still rule the day even though traffic safety can be achieved without always charging.

Here's an ...

It's not entrapment, since that's when police induce you to commit a crime.

Simon wrote a good post on his blog about quotas. There has always been an expectation that police need to account for their time. If an officer is busy with calls for service, court, etc., they might not write any tickets during their shift. If on the other hand they ...

Personal opinion, but I really don't think the charge is applicable for a plate that's faded. Not sure how the Courts interpret the section, but it basically says the plates need to be kept clean and have nothing blocking them. If a plate has simply faded, you haven't really obstructed it.

Not sure how you'd be best to proceed. I personally think ...