Ontario Highway Traffic Act

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.