Search found 2111 matches

bobajob wrote:BTW; looking at my ticket it says under offence

"Speeding 144 kmh in a 100kmh zone"
HTA 128

isnt the offence; shouldnt it say (I can't remmewber the exact wording)
"30 – 49 km/h over"

is this a fatal ?

No, the wording is correct. It should state your actual speed and the speed limit.

My car is not modded in anyway and I don't believe I had enough road to accelerate to speed of 85km/hr and then decelerate to zero for red light.

Unfortunately, this argument isn't going to get you anywhere in Court. With evidence from a speed measuring device, your belief about your cars ability won't hold weight. It's your opinion versus a ...

Most people, police included, are of the belief that no demerit points equals no insurance increase. The belief is probably reinforced by the fact that most providers overlook a driver's first minor conviction or never find out about it the first place. I truly don't think it's a case of the police being deceitful versus simply misinformed.

You'll have to contact your insurance provider to find out. Some will ignore your first ticket, others may increase your rates. It actually has nothing to do with the fact that it's a speeding ticket. Any ticket (i.e. expired licence plate sticker, burnt out headlight) can increase your rates.

Nope. You're still charged under the Highway Traffic Act, so the section listed on the ticket is correct. Schedule 43 has nothing to do with the actual offence, it's just a list of set fines for out of Court settlements. If you went to trial and were convicted your fine could be calculated using the higher H.T.A. values, but you get a slight break ...

The fine is actually correct. The Ontario Court of Justice has different set fines for speeding then what's shown in the HTA. You can see them here: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/how-do-i/set-fines/set-fines-i/schedule-43/

So for 20-29 km/hr over the fine is $3.75 per km over. So 27*$3.75 = $101.25. Add a $25 surcharge and $5 court costs, youre ...

OPS Copper wrote:I notice one thing. You were not there and are getting information second hand. Yet you are sure that the officer stopped for made up reason. Maybe your relative is not telling you everything.

When I read that the relative will require a translator in Court, I'm also wondering if some of the roadside conversation wasn't properly understood.

It actually falls under the Insurance Act (which is separate from the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act). I believe most minimums are listed in the main body of the act, but some of it might be in the regulations as well.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/r ... i8/latest/

1) No, your relative should be able to renew their licence right away since theyve yet to be convicted of the offence.
2) It would be dependent on what type of software the officer had in his cruiser, what type of query was made and what databases were accessible at the time. Since the persons actual licence contains more detailed information, a ...

Police are allowed to stop random vehicles to ensure drivers are licenced, insured, etc. If the officer knew your relatives licence was expired, that would certainly be more than enough reason to conduct a traffic stop. Its also perfectly normal for police to collect the drivers documents then return to their cruiser to conduct further queries ...

You can wait and see what the actual evidence against you is before making a decision.

It's difficult to weigh in on your options/chances of appeal without seeing the full judgement. The sections you've quoted don't really give much sense out of context, nor do they clarify if the Court feels that particular evidence is relevant to the outcome.

The witnesses will need to be present or else their statements are inadmissable. Since you rescheduled, they can still testify if they show up on the new date. If you had forced a trial on the original date, the Crown would have had to proceed without their evidence.

Edit: Above should have read "The charge against the owner would be a new, separate charge."

can a charge be changed later?

The original charge against the driver doesn't need to be changed. The charge against the driver would be a new, separate charge. The police actually have up to three years to lay the charge since it falls under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

If the employee truly didn't have permission, that would be a ...

If the officer didn't file the ticket, it doesn't matter what option you selected. The Courts aren't able to do anything if the ticket isn't filed within 7 days.

Yes, the suspension will show on your abstract.

As you can see from the other thread youve posted in, there is some debate as to whether simply writing "speeding" without an actual speed is a fatal error. The opposite however is not true. Your ticket has the correct short form wording that is accepted by the Courts.

I'm in similar situation and confused with above answers. I believe my ticket has a fatal error on its face-offense not known to law. It says "speeding 75km/hr in posted 60km/hr zone" under did commit the offense of( as far as I'm concerned it should simply say "speeding") and below contrary of "Highway Traffic Act of Ontario Sec 128". Please ...

Contact your local courthouse and explain your situation. You'll have to attend, fill out some forms and speak with a Justice of the Peace. They can advise you what day/time a J.P. would be available.

Id disagree that not listing the actual speed is prejudicial to your defence. The alleged offence and section number are still shown on your ticket. The amount youre exceeding the speed limit by doesnt change the nature of the offence, just the set fine. Keep in mind Courts regularly allow reduced speeding tickets to be amended back up to the full ...

Take some time to do some research on the forum. Careless driving is a common ticket to receive when you're involved in an accident but it carries serious implications. You'll want to request disclosure and review the Crown's evidence, possibly hiring professional representation if you go to trial. Quite often you'll be offered a plea deal to a ...

captaintoronto wrote:I'm disappointed that the sign itself is sufficient. Can you think of anything else I can do to be prepared?

I'm not saying it's for certain, just that you'll have to research case law and be prepared to argue the point.

You can remain in the intersection until it's safe to compelte your turn. You simply can't enter an intersection on a red light.

Check your google map link, it's taking me to an intersection in California, USA.

1) Yes, 2 points.
2) There should be a bylaw for the sign, but the Courts often accept the sign itself as prima facie evidence of the bylaw.
3) Disclosure is a good place to start.

There is no jail time associated directly with the offence. If you're charged and convicted, you'll be looking at a $5,000 fine. If you fail to pay the fine your licence will be suspended. If you continued to drive once you're suspended, you could then face jail time for driving under suspension.

Insurance is expensive, but the Courts will not ...

Actually, since the charge falls under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, the officer has up to three years to lay the charge.

I would say yes, you're still at fault. The solid or dashed lane markings aren't legally enforceable, they're more of a suggestion. Unless there was signage dictating a specific use for the lane, it would appear the other driver's pass was legal. Section 12(6) of the fault determination rules state the following:
If automobile "B" is leaving a ...

Now because I ran the light with so much time after it turned red, I'm wondering if I should try early resolution again or just pay the full fine? I read about there being a very very very small percentage (0.3%) of people who "fight" these tickets actually get their fines increased. Would these be people that plead not guilty? If I plead guilty ...

Ynotp is correct. I cant speak to your personal observations, but the plea deal should somehow relate to the actual offence. Keep in mind that the Justice of the Peace could ask for a synopsis of what happened leading up to the charge, so if the offence doesnt fit what happened, a conviction cant be registered. In your case I dont know what ...