Search found 2111 matches

Sounds like you were charged under the wrong section then. The proper charge would be "Drive Wrong Way - One Way Traffic" under section 153.

What street/city were you charged on? The definition of "highway" under the H.T.A. includes all roadways, not just major roads like the 401 that you'd commonly refer to as a highway. A divided highway would basically be any roadway with some type of division (like a median) that separates traffic travelling in opposite directions.

Not having received a notice of suspension helps your defence but it isnt sufficient in itself to beat the charge. The burden of proof lies on you to establish that you exercised due diligence. The court will want to see that you took all reasonable steps to ensure your fines were paid off and licence still in good standing.

Questions that will ...

I can decipher some of it but not all of the short forms used. Nothing wrong with requesting clarification in your case.

- Stalker II (the type of radar used)
- Your car type maybe? 2012 Red Chrysler 200
- F-FP???
- "We were just talking I didnt realise it"
- Where the officer was situated (school parking lot on a Colebrook Road)
- You were ...

If they still will not do anything, you can request a a meeting with a Justice of the Peace and press Private Charges against the driver. If the JP allows this, then you will act as the prosecutor and the cab driver as the defendant.
For a privately laid charge, the Crown still acts as the prosecutor. The person laying the information would ...

Thanks. but I have those documents with me . I was in rush to home when I was handed two of them. I can show it to the court. is there any chance that they convict me despite my documentation?

If your ownership was up to date, I think you should have been charged under section 7(5)(a) - Fail to Surrender Permit. It sounds like everything was up ...

The plea deal would not likely make any difference in terms of insurance. Follow too closely and improper stop would both likely be considered a minor offence. The only way demerit points will make a difference is if you're a G1 or G2 driver since follow too close is a 4 demerit point offence which would result in a 30 day suspension.

Also it mentions tuning forks!!! I did not think that tuning forks were used anymore. Or maybe that is for the units mounted in the vehicles only.
You're correct. I'm not aware of any of the newer radar systems, stationary or moving, that require tuning fork tests. Either the officer was using a very old unit or the defence was maybe trying to ...

There is no way to avoid the suspension short of being found not guilty or working out a plea deal to a lesser offence with less points.

You could lay a private information through the Courts. Youd have to show a Justice of the Peace that there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence was committed. The only catch is that the Crown Attorney will review the allegations and ultimately decide if they want to proceed with the charge or not.

23. (1) Any person who, on reasonable ...

Havent read the full decision but it sounds reasonable. Ive seen people get off on speeding tickets before when officers arent able to explain the testing procedure properly. Considering testing procedures are typically very simple and straightforward, I dont think its an unfair to say officers need to be able to explain it on the stand.

Yes, speeding tickets are routinely amended back up to the full speed at trial.

Spectacular diagram.

But yes, based on your description of events, you did nothing wrong.

bobajob wrote:Oh another question, you can get the neon license plate surrounds,

Are these illegal too ?

Licence plate lights need to be white, so if the neon was coloured (like in the photo) it would be illegal.

the lamp shall face to the rear and reflect on the number plate a white light only

People sometimes use the full clear plastic to protect the plate, especially if its a vanity plate... whats the issue?

Yellowing, oxidation, pitting, glare, etc. Some people also want to believe "clear" means tinted (black, blue, etc). The issue is a lot of times they interfere with the reading of a plate, whether by an officer, toll, or another ...

That is the correct fine.

Unfortunately your belief that you weren't speeding wouldn't be of any benefit in Court. Unless you can dispute the radar/laser reading, it will be considered the defacto speed of your vehicle. Also, if you state you were just going with the flow of traffic and not really paying attention, that kind of weakens any ...

No, because the Justice of the Peace would have no way of knowing the plate shown on the ticket is incorrect. The error has to be something they can easily see is wrong, like missing info, wrong fine, wrong date, etc.

The facts relating to where the officer was situated was stated in the incomplete disclosure made by the crown. In the officers notes, she states that she was parked on the Toyota lot on xx street.

The poisonous fruit may be an an American idiom, but most certainly, the principle applies in the execution of an officers' duty. An officer must be ...

What was the actual scenario? Im going to assume the officer was at the side of the road on private property (driveway, plaza, etc.) measuring the speed of passing vehicles.

If thats the case, it unfortunately wont assist you in getting the radar/laser evidence tossed out. Our Charter (fruit of the poisonous tree is a US doctrine) certainly does ...

I agree, it sounds like you have a fatal error. Incorrectly placing your DOB where the offence date goes places your ticket waaaay outside the 15 day limit to bring a ticket before the Court.

Hopefully if the Justice of the Peace is alert when reviewing your ticket, they should pick up on the error. If not, you'll have to jump through some hoops ...

By rights if the world were just, the one who does the accusing should be the one that suffers the burden of travel if needed(after all the witness is a cop and it would be police business so he would not be paying for any of it), but of course the law is not for me, it's meant to be stacked against me.

I understand why you feel it's an ...

There is no incentive for the Crown to withdraw the first two charges if you plan on going to trial on the third, hence they all get dealt with together. You'll either work out a plea deal on all three or go to trial on all three. Unfortunately unlike the red light ticket, there's not much to fight the ownership/licence tickets on. Even though you ...

No, avoiding service won't make it go away. First, the summons can actually be served on any adult in your home, it doesn't have to be served on you personally. Second, if the officer believes you're avoiding service, they could request the Courts issue a warrant for your arrest.

On your first appearance you'll want to plead not guilty until you can determine your options (you can always change your plea at a later time). You'll want to request a meeting with the Crown, which might even be possible on your first attendance date. You'll want to see if the prosecutor is willing to offer you a plea deal. If your record is ...

1) A closed window isn't indicative that no radar was in use. As you yourself said, it works fine through glass and the officer is testifying to its use.
2) Any curvature in the road with a stationary radar unit is to your benefit. It would actually present a lower reading then your actual speed. The reading will still be accepted by the Court.
3 ...

I believe the first two tickets would be a $170 fine each and the third $110, so a total of $450. No demerit points.

You can probably work out a plea deal where they'll drop one if you plead guilty to the other two.

Officers notes: Must be provided
Both sides of the ticket: Wont be provided unless notes were written on back of ticket
Typed version: Unlikely to receive on first request. Will have to justify upon reviewing notes (i.e. illegible, use of short forms that are indecipherable)
Statements made by the defendant: Unless you gave the officer a ...

1) You won't be able to pay the fee until your licence can be reinstated.
2) That would depend on the class of licence you had when you were suspended. If it was a full G, you should only require an eye test. You will also likely be required to complete the "Back on Track" programme due to your impaired conviction.
3) I believe the Back on Track ...

The JP in the cited case was simply reviewing the officer's evidence. I wouldn't say it was actually relevant to the decision.

So, basically any police officer can claim anything and in the court of law their claims are believed and drivers claims are ignored.

Realistically that's how Court works. It's one person's word versus another's. There ...

No, there is no requirement for them to do so.