Search found 2111 matches

You have 30 days to reopen a matter after a conviction and require a valid reason to do so. To the best of my knowledge, your reasons wouldn't be accepted in Court.

As for the G1 violation, the fact that a full G driver was with you is irrelevant. They should have been driving, not you.

Contact your insurance provider to find out what kind of ...

On your first Court date, talk with the Crown about a plea deal. Explain the situation fully, be polite, and stress your clean driving record. There's a reasonable chance they'll let you plead down to the offence of drive motor vehicle, no licence (the charge you normally get for driving with an expired licence). It's a about a $300 fine, carries ...

Further, your statement may not be admissible if it was not given under a caution.

Simon

What does "under caution" consist of? If the officer at the reporting centre simply asks you what happened and you say you hit the car, is your statement given under caution or does the officer have to make some kind of statement first?

Once a police ...

Yes, you must yield to faster vehicles. They may be committing an offence by speeding, but you're still committing an offence by not yielding. One doesn't cancel out the other.

As for what a police officer would, that would be entirely up to them. I personally would rather see lane hogs get a ticket versus someone going slightly over on the ...

You would receive 3 demerit points if convicted. As a fully licenced class G driver, 7 points would result in a warning letter.

In terms of a reduction, you will have to speak with the Crown and see if they offer you any type of plea deal. They would need to reduce it to 15 over for no demerit points. I'm not sure what your chances are of getting ...

You could possibly still be charged by summons, but it's unlikely. It would have been much simpler for the officer to issue the summons at the side of the road.

Most likely all that's happened is the officer notified suspension control that your licence was seized and you're now aware of your suspension. That means if you get stopped again ...

Whenever Ive obtained a permit for a new motor vehicle, changed my address or replaced a lost ownership, there was no evidence of validation affixed to the back. The MTO always advised that the expiry and permit number printed on the front was sufficient. They simply dont provide a new sticker unless its damaged, expired or lost.

I personally ...

A quick read of the decision makes it sound like this should apply to straight forward tickets (i.e. officer observed you do something illegal). Still sounds like more time will be allowed for more complicated trials (i.e. serious MVC with multiple witnesses).

So there are people exiting the 401 eastbound on Salem Rd. only to change their minds and decide to re-enter the same 401 eastbound?

While I cant say with certainty what Ajax traffic engineers had in mind, typically its done to help ease congestion. My guess would be when the 401 eastbound is backed up, that would make a nice little alternate to ...

Interesting read, thanks for the link.

diehard wrote:Trying to understand what the issue really is here....

http://g.co/maps/4k5zf

There are four signs indicating no through traffic, two prior to the intersection two on the traffic lights. There are also lane signs posted prior to the intersection indicating the left and centre lane are for left turns only, and the right lane for right turns only.

Certainly not good, but even professional drivers have "moments". I'd be curious if the driver just wasn't familiar with the route, or just decided to take a chance.

As for fault determination, I think someone turning could have a possible defence, especially if the bus driver was charged with disobey sign by the police.

No, the fact that a sign has been changed/removed isnt grounds to have the charge withdrawn. Its very unlikely the officer has no notes on the sign, or else the Crown wont be able to prove the charge. Request disclosure and go from there. Youll have to base your defence on the officers notes and your own independent recollection.

1) Court date is listed on the summons
2) Obtain insurance, proper plates, etc. to show your vehicle is now road legal, then talk with the Crown about a possible plea deal.

I know representation may seem expensive, but it may be worth borrowing money off parents, etc. as you can't afford to get convicted on everything.

2) I understand RIDE spot checks are technically a Charter breach and case law has stated that it is the exception to the Charter protected right to not be abritrarily detained but what jurisdiction of court made this the fact... is the Charter legislation really constantly being changed as a result of case law... are basic human rights that the ...

1) It wont be changed to a parking infraction since that has nothing to do with speeding. While sometimes HTA matters are plead out to bylaw infractions, it would have to be something related. For instance, many prohibited turns in Toronto are plead out to a bylaw charge relating to prohibited turns or disobeying a sign. The fact that your speeding ...

Just noticed the fine amount in your title. While the total fine for red lights is $325, I believe the total fine for amber lights is less, just $180.

Between the incorrect fine and section number, I think you have a ticket that should be quashed. Hopefully someone else can verify this.

Basically you need to ignore the ticket, hope the Justice of ...

1) As the above poster somewhat said, your understanding of police and quotas and how they work is more myth then fact. Police are required to appear in Court, and not doing so is neglect of duty. Barring some type of emergency or other conflict, expect them to attend. Its also unlikely in my opinion youll get much, if any reduction on a ticket ...

1) As its an absolute liability offence, that fact that you were trying to stop is irrelevant. You either did or you didnt.
2) Maybe someone else can clarify, but I was under the impression the camera only measures your speed when you first enter the intersection. The information at the top of the photo may not correspond with the actual instant it ...

If the charge wording on your ticket says "Amber light - Fail to Stop" but lists section 144(18), it's incorrect. The correct section is 144(15), while section 144(18) is for red lights. It's possibly a fatal error.

The other option is to go to trial and see if the Crown can prove their case and explain how/why you felt you couldn't stop safely.

The fact that multiple persons were stopped in short period of time is not evidence of any type of quota system. Speaking from personal experience, there is no shortage of traffic offences that officers regularly witness and they certainly dont need to compromise their integrity by writing bogus tickets.

Much more likely is that the officer truly ...

Agreed, your statement sounds like an admission of careless driving. The good thing is it's a tough charge to prove, especially if you didn't provide a statement, but not one you want to risk being convicted of.

Have you talked with the Crown about a plea deal to a lesser offence? They usually offer one and it's certainly better to plead out to ...

Looking at the intersection on Streetview, I don't see any signs posted indicating you must turn left (square black signs with white arrows). It would also be legal I believe to stop, signal and merge back into a through lane.

I agree it's a stupid design to have a left turn lane that you can't use at certain hours, but I'm not sure you have a ...

I don't believe it applies to collector lanes. In the express lanes there are signs posted typically on every other overpass indicating no trucks in the left lane.

Poor weather/slippery roads is irrelevant as it's an absolute liability offence so the Crown only needs to show you didn't stop. The fact that your disclosure included part of another ticket is also irrelevant.

If your matter does take more then a year to reach trial, and none of the delays are attributed to you (i.e. you didn't ask for an ...

There is no specific section. Use of the lane would depend on signage (i.e. signs indicating left turn lane only, not road markings) and actions of other drivers that may allow for legal passing in such a lane.

You could seek a plea deal to a lesser offence that doesn't carry any demerit points or fight the charge outright and hope you're found not guilty (probably not likely).

Don't get too focused on demerit points though unless you're about to lose your licence because of them. Insurance providers go by convictions, not points.

For you to be charged as the driver, the bus driver would need to identify you. If they obtained your plate, the registered owner of the vehicle would be charged. The latter is more likely.

1) Charged by mail, could be several weeks
2) Whichever parent is the RO will receive the charge
3) No impact on insurance if you're charged as the owner, only ...

My understanding is that yes, it's legal, assuming you turn into the correct (far) lane.

My question is does having a braking system that wasn't performing properly constitute careless driving

Assuming the vehicle is properly maintained and the failure could not reasonably be predicted, I would say no.

You would need some type of mechanical inspection report to support this type of defence however. Simply saying your brakes didn't ...