Ontario Highway Traffic Act

1) A valid insurance slips for the date of the offence should suffice as proof that you had insurance. But what were you actually charged with? Not having insurance or not having your proof of insurance with you? If it was the latter, the charge is for not having it with you at the time you were stopped. Bringing it to Court doesn't nullify the ...

Not sure on some of the short forms, but what I can decipher:

Obs (observed) ??? Toyota ???
Lane 2 of 3 ???
Approach high rate of speed
???
Target laser speed 147 km/h
Never lost sight
???
???
No valid excuse given
???
Highway posted 100
Signs ???
Markham Road ???

Laser Atlanta
Serial #23489
Tested at 0605 hrs
And at 1335 Hrs

1) Yes, police have 6 months to proceed with the charge. Very unlikely though, especially since the officer told you he wouldn't.
2) Very minor error that shouldn't cause any problems.
3) No, the error is on the part of the police and no, insurance companies have no say on charges being laid.

snowman15 wrote:'Guilty with an explanation'? ..... If I chose this route....is it possible to get the charge reduced to something lesser?

No, because you're pleading guilty to the charge as is. You can only get a fine reduction.

You'll want to select not guilty and seek a plea deal with the Crown to a lesser offence.

Yes, they have six months to proceed with the charge.

I personally wouldn't have waited so long to attend the reporting centre. Your legally obliged to attend right away, not at your earliest convenience. You're lucky you're not being charged for failing to report it.

clover wrote:Because i have never broken the law, and a criminal offense will cost me my job. Period.

Just to point out, none of these are criminal offences. None would impact your ability to travel outside the country, etc.

TomLee wrote:so would be two year from july 31,2011

Yes, two years from July 31, 2011. The demerit points are only added after a conviction, and only stay on your driving record for two years from the offence date.

Two years from the offence date actually.

I think there's mixed opinions on that bit of advice. In my opinion it would be difficult to argue in Court you never received disclosure because you refused to provide your phone number. It can quite rightfully look like a stalling tactic.

The other issue is I believe you get an additional 30 day suspension upon conviction.

Failing to stop for a red light is what's known as an absolute liability offence. Not seeing the light isn't justification for going through and wouldn't be a valid defence in Court.

Yes, they're directional and only photograph vehicles going the direction they're facing.

gabe wrote:The only difference between the two tickets is $$$ and really probably less than $30.

$12.50 would be the difference in fines or $20 if they go with the HTA versus set fines.

The term highway in traffic law typically refers to all roads, not just actual proper highways. Through highway typically means any road that connects to another road and has stop/yield signs where they meet. Still, Hamilton bylaws might have a different definition, so it's worth checking.

As for fighting it, I'd say it really depends on the fine.

Most likely the officer was using moving radar. It's mounted on the dash of the cruiser and can detect the speed of oncoming traffic. And you're correct, moving with the speed of traffic is not a defence. You'll have to request disclosure and go from there. Disclosure should consist of the officer's notes and at least part of the manual for the ...