Ontario Highway Traffic Act

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 ...