Ontario Highway Traffic Act

Red light camera tickets get sent to the registered owner of the vehicle so I'm confused as to how you would have been charged. Are you sure it's for a red light camera versus a regular red light ticket?

The notes could be sufficient to prove guilt for the alleged offence. The fact that you and the officer have a differing recollection of what transpired doesn't make the officer's note's inaccurate, it's simply his version/recollection of what transpired. You'll need to think of some specific, relevant points to question the officer on. You can ...

1) No, not if it was properly signed (i.e speed limit signs stating 50 km/hr).
2) No.

They can't proceed without the officer. The adjournment may be granted since the circumstances causing the delay were unforeseen, but obviously argue against it. In my experience adjournments are rarely granted if the officer is away on course/vacation, but since this is something beyond the Crown/officer's control, they may.

I don't think that's an address, just the police cruiser or police unit number. He simply says he was parked on Hawthorne east of Lauzon. Regardless an incorrect address probably wouldn't make much of a difference if he correctly identified the intersection where he was parked.

You could still be convicted even though you weren't served notice. The Crown will argue you ought to have reasonably been aware of it since you failed to pay your fine. If the Crown isn't willing to cut you a deal, legal representation might not be a bad idea. I'd suggest paying off your outstanding fine and getting your licence reinstated ASAP to ...

Definitely count on the officer attending Court regardless of what he said at the side of the road. Police are required to attend Court and failing to do so without reason can result in them being charged under the Police Services Act.

Also dont bank on the strategy of arguing you were passing the other vehicle to increase safety. Courts consider ...

The OPP officer said he clocked me at 138 km (58 over) and the black Jeep at 97km (but he did not pull him over, can I use this as defence as well)
No, the fact that you were passing another vehicle and/or it wasn't stopped isn't relevant to your defence.


I've already created my disclosure request which asks for the following:
1. A full copy ...

Signs are covered by regulation 615 of the HTA. http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/r ... g-615.html

Agreed, you can't cherry pick sections of the HTA. And as for the argument it's on private property, you still have a sign across the street that clearly isn't. So even if you could legally ignore the sign in the parking lot, the other sign still compels you not to turn left.

What section were you actually charged under? I'm guessing section 182. Section 139 applies when leaving a private driveway (which you were) but you're still required to obey any posted signs as per section 182. Section 144 would not apply since there wasn't any traffic control.

I'd say the one shown in your photo is on private property, but the one across the road on the utility pole is lawful and enforceable.

Typically bylaw offences aren't a problem because they don't appear on your record. However certain bylaw offences where you're charged as the driver such as speeding, making prohibited turns and disobeying stop signs or traffic lights will result in a conviction on your record and demerit points. This means the offence will appear on your abstract ...

What sign did you disobey? If it was for a prohibited turn, pleading to the bylaw offence will be of little benefit. Even bylaw convictions for prohibited turns appear on your driving abstract and result in 2 demerit points.

I understand how you feel, but just be careful with your demeanour in Court. As petty as it may seem to you, the prosecutors and J.P.'s take this all very seriously. If they feel you're downplaying the offence, they probably won't cut you any slack. I'd liken it to when you have an argument with your significant other; even when you're right its ...