Search found 2111 matches

Yes, there needs to be some type of injury. If the driver has documentation supporting that the person wasn't injured (not that they simply declined medical aid) then I'd think that's a pretty good defence.

Police typically can't lay Highway Traffic Act charges for accidents that happened on private property. Regardless, insurance fault rules still apply. Typically the driver who struck the other vehicle from behind is 100% at fault.

Here's a link to fault determination rules on the Insurance Bureau website: http://www.ibc.ca/en/car_insurance ...

When police lay a highway traffic act charge, they can proceed with a regular offence notice (a ticket) or summons. A summons requires you to attend Court, and is typically used for more serious charges, especially those with no set fine. If you had been given a summons, the errors that would result in a normal ticket being thrown out, don't apply ...

If the pothole was large enough to cause damage and your wide turn didn't effect any other traffic, I would think that's possible grounds to fight the charge in Court. I don't believe it's an absolute liability offence.

In regards to the error with your birth date, I can't see it being a fatal error. It's basically a minor typo. Fatal errors are ...

Requesting disclosure was a good start.

Stop wrong place is the incorrect charge for a rolling stop, but check the offence location to verify which intersection the officer is talking about. Maybe she decided to charge you for the other alleged offence.

Be familiar with where you're legally required to stop under section 136 of the Highway ...

You did nothing wrong. While its illegal to enter an intersection on a red light, its not illegal to clear it. Some cities have bylaws that prohibit blocking intersections like the other driver did, but it's not illegal otherwise.

Technically it's legal to reverse on a roadway if done so in safety. The only applicable charge off the top of my head would be careless if it wasn't done with due care and attention. Section 157 makes it illegal to reverse on a highway with a speed limit of 80 km/hr or more, but police are exempt.

As for fault determination, I wouldn't worry ...

It's the incorrect charge if it can be shown you entered the intersection on an amber light. If the officer testifies to that fact, you should be found not guilty. More likely the officer believes you entered the intersection on a red light. You'll have to dispute at trial the colour of the light when you entered the intersection. Easiest way to ...

Representation is covered under by-law 4 of the Law Society of Upper Canada which can be found online.

Section 30 sub 5.1 states:

Acting for family
Subject to subsection (2), the following may, without a licence, provide legal services in Ontario...
5.1. An individual
i. whose profession or occupation is not and does not include the provision ...

worst case scenario i plea guilty to a lesser conviction/fine in court. But will the court think i am just wasting there time and re-neg my plea to a lesser conviction if i cannot win the ticket completely???? and just stick it to me !???

Worst case scenario is you go to trial and get found guilty. You can face a slightly higher fines for ...

I'm not really following. How do you feel he wrongfully pulled you over? You said yourself your trunk wasn't secure and the validation sticker didn't belong on the plate.

1) Sections 175(11) means you're being charged as the driver. If you were being charged as the owner it would fall under section 175(19).
2) Since you're being charged as the driver demerit points will apply.
3) The Crown may be willing to offer you a reduced fine, but they can't reduce points. The only way to avoid points is to be found not guilty ...

Not sure I really follow your explanation of what happened, but failing to slow down and failing to switch lanes are two different sections. Yes, she should have pulled into a different lane, but that's not what she's been charged with. The officer will have to articulate that why they believe your daughter didn't slow to a safe speed when passing ...

When police first arrive on scene at an accident, theyre allowed to question people to form an understanding of what happened. They only need to caution you (basically advise you dont need to provide a statement) once theyve formed grounds to believe youve committed an offence. Its possible a paralegal may be able to exclude part or all of your ...

Licence plates can be replaced for reasons other then accidents. The MTO will NOT notify your insurance provider.

No demerit points. Sections 199 is for when you fail to report an accident. I'd describe it as a much more serious charge, though the fine is the same. Section 199 carries 3 demerit points.

Xero5 wrote:I was under the impression that they're only allowed to give out plates if everything is fine with the insurance.

While you may have provided insurance information, it's not necessarily verified by the MTO. They're assuming you're providing a valid policy to them, the onus is on you to make sure that's the case.

You may not need to attend in person if you have representation. Not sure what the cost of representation in Nova Scotia would be compared to travelling there yourself.

I think the main problem with any of us giving you advice is a lack of familiarity with Nova Scotia laws, which could vary significantly from Ontario.

It's relatively new, but police in Ontario are starting to gain the ability to check insurance through their terminals.

I'd be very careful about ensuring your dad's old policy still covers you if the plates/ownership has changed. Make sure the insurance company is aware of this change and still providing coverage.

And I don't follow what you're ...

The lack of offence date may be an issue on a normal ticket, but not on a summons which is what I'm guessing you received (regular ticket has a fine, summons has no fine and a court date).

Taking care of your outstanding fines certainly won't hurt when it comes to sentencing. Crown's often cite large outstanding fines as a sign that the accused ...

The fact that it was not intentional isn't a defence in itself. Lots of accidents aren't intentional but it doesn't negate fault. You'd have to show that the road conditions were something very unexpected, sudden and you were driving with due care. This has already been answered in your earlier post on this same question.

http://www ...

If the charge has been withdrawn you won't receive disclosure. You'll have to file a freedom of information request through the police service instead. There's usually a fee associated with this so I'd have the insurance company look after it if they want the info.

Stanton, 9 out of 10 times, it doesn't get raised back up to the original fine. If it goes to trial and a conviction is entered they will add the court costs which puts it higher than the set fine / total payable for the offence if it wouldn't go to trial. But really what do you have to lose, not a whole lot.

I'd disagree. Over the last year or ...

The Highway Traffic Act simply states that youre required to surrender your ownership upon demand. In short when the officer asks for it, you need to provide it. The HTA does not provide a grace period in which you can search your vehicle for the document.

That being said Courts are cognizant of the fact that people dont drive around with their ...

OPS Copper wrote:and it is also grounds to search the vehicle.

...and persons within the vehicle. The Liquor Licence Act grants police some pretty amazing search authorities. Just another reason not to drink in cars.

What are the consequences of taking it to court?
No consequences, nothing to lose, almost suggested.


Not quite true as speeding tickets can be raised back up to the full amount at trial. If the officer clocked you at 109, the Crown will probably request the charge be amended to 29 over at trial. Same number of demerit points, but the fine ...

Red light cameras use induction loops buried in the ground to measure speed, not radar. If the speed didn't hold up in Court, they wouldn't be of much use.

As for street signs, I don't believe there's any requirements they be visible, just imposed info on the photo itself providing a location.

It's not a mistake, it's just that the ramifications for being convicted are pretty serious compared to your average ticket. You wouldn't want to represent yourself unless you're comfortable with the Courts and trial process.

Section 32 of the liquor licence act states that it's illegal to drive a motor vehicle if there's an open bottle of liquor within reach of anyone in the vehicle, not just the driver. To transport liquor in a motor vehicle it either needs to be in a sealed container, a sealed piece of baggage or somewhere inaccessible to everyone. I personally don't ...

As speeding is an absolute liability offence, you cant really use the faulty speedometer as a defence. The Courts basically just look at if you were speeding, not why.

If the fine is the main issue, talk with the Crown and see if theyll offer you a plea to a reduced speed and/or fine (pretty much always will). If the conviction itself is the main ...