Search found 2111 matches

In my initial post, I did not mention that the arm was out and that the bus was unloading kids. Just because I was on a different street, I am good with passing? My peers scared me today, saying that all traffic needs to be stop.

Yes, you're only required to stop if you're on the same roadway as the bus. Section 175 of the HTA lays out the ...

I personally think that a strong charter challenge against some of these laws would succeed. The big problem I see is that the time and expense of launching one of the challenges would be significant. It wouldn't help someone who's had their car impounded get it back any faster (the Court process could take years) and the average person doesn't ...

Search the forum for threads dealing with fatal errors. You DONT want a trial, since then your ticket can be amended. Hopefully the JP noticed the missing information and quashed your ticket.

If you turned right onto the same roadway as the bus, you would need to stop before passing it. But otherwise you're not required to stop if proceeding straight through, etc.

ynotp wrote:Okay lets hope this clears this up:

Source: http://www.wheels.ca/guides/advance-gre ... rn-on-red/

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. Wish they'd write the HTA in plain english like the article. I remember even my driving instructor back in the day telling me it was illegal to make a right turn on an advanced left.

There is no appeal process. The section states " there is no appeal from, or right to be heard before, the suspension of a drivers licence under this section". While I suspect this denial of appeal could be challenged under the Charter in Court, that would be a very drawn out process that would take much longer then the suspension itself. Your only ...

Regardless is there is a green arrow indicating a left turn, you can make right on a red if you stop first so long as you can do so safely and there is no sign prohibiting it. SS 19 grants that exemption.

That's actually incorrect. Subsection 19 is still subject to subsection 14.

(19) Despite subsection (18) and subject to subsection (14) , a ...

The police would have to comply if the property owner asked them to leave, but it doesnt negate whatever enforcement theyve conducted. It wont be a defence for your charge in Court.

The conviction will show on your drivers abstract and likely increase your insurance rates as a novice driver. Furthermore, if youre convicted, your licence will be suspended for an additional 30 days. You may want to review your options before pleading guilty.

Its somewhat problematic that you claim to have only had one glass of wine and yet you ...

1) If you're both in the process of changing lanes, it would likely be 50/50 fault. It would depend on what the police report says.
2) Again dependent on what determination the investigating officer makes. Change lane not in safety, 142(1) would be a possible charge. It carries a $110 fine and 2 points. But they could lay no charge, or something ...

In Ontario, speeding is what's known as an absolute liability offence. If it's the same in Nova Scotia, your explanation would not work. Regardless, I personally think most Courts would fault your logic that ignoring road signs was the prudent course of action in poor weather. Also problematic is the fact that you're arguing you were trying to be ...

There is no additional disclosure provided with red light camera tickets. The ticket itself is considered to be evidence of the offence.

In terms of determining if the camera and/or traffic light was working correctly, you need only look at the photograph. You should be able to see a visible red traffic signal at the time you entered the ...

The argument that your speedometer showed 78 km/hr instead of 80 km/hr isn't a defence that will work in Court. The difference in speed is minor and you don't know if the officer obtained the reading at the same time you looked at your speedo. Courts will also generally accept the radar as being far more accurate then your speedo.

As with any ...

What was the actual charge, section and act?

You have to attend Court and request the matter be reopened. You only have 15 days from when you became aware of the conviction to do so. You also need to demonstrate that the reason you failed to attend was through no fault of your own. In other words it can't be that you simply forgot, it has to be something more akin to an unexpected emergency.

aasghar wrote:That's useful information Simon, Thanks.

And so what are my options if I missed the Early Resoltion Meeting, and still intend on pleading guilty ?

Thanks

Do you mean not guilty? Because as Simon posted, by failing to attend you WILL be found guilty, you don't have to enter a plea.

I'd start by contacting the MTO and ensuring their records show the plates were returned. Is it your plate in the photograph?

Its dependent on where you were turning (intersection versus driveway) and if there were additional vehicles behind you that the other motorist passed.

Sections 10(5) through 10(7) in MegaSilvers link cover the various scenarios. You could be 0%, 25% or 50% at fault. Based on what you said it sounds like you would be 50% at fault.

My understanding is that yes, it would be perfectly legal. I can't think of any lighting restrictions that it would contravene.

Ok I've searched and the HTA makes little sense... (I swear they do it on purpose.)

It's like a piece of old computer code. Written in a language that most people don't understand, with so many modifications and ...

I would certainly argue against the adjournment. If the Justice of the Peace denies the Crown's request, your ticket will be quashed.

Be honest and bring up the very points you just listed. Do you lose any pay for taking time off? Does someone else need to fill in for you while you're away?

Typically officers book their holidays in advance to ...

1) Tickets only record the offence location, not the direction of travel.
2) The officer will not be present.
3) No. You'd have to demonstrate some reason why their evidence is necessary and then a JP can summons them. Here's the section below:

Challenge to officers evidence
205.20 (1) The provincial offences officer who used the evidence ...

It should in no way impact employment, travel, etc.

Contact your provider and verify if you still have coverage on your old vehicle or not. If you asked them to transfer the policy, my guess is no.

If you are uninsured, theres not really much to argue in Court. You need to demonstrate at the very least that you reasonably believed the vehicle was insured. Even if the mistake was an honest one, I ...

With two careless driving charges I'd strongly suggest seeking legal representation. Even one conviction would be detrimental in terms of insurance, etc.

The situation as you describe does raise the possibility that even if you had been driving with more due care (i.e. not eating) the accident may still have occurred. It would be very dependent ...

That's going to be difficult to argue you were simply trying to safely move out of the way at that speed.

Typically markings on the ground aren't required, just signage. The problem being that ground markings can easily be covered up by snow, etc. As Bend said, you'd have to check the local bylaws to be certain.

1. officers notes have no mention that I slammed my brakes... in fact it implies that I drove straight in to the car in front of me. Summary says "Failed to Stop". I have photo's of the accident and points of impact as well as measurements. Point of impact on other car was 1.5 feet from street level (Hyundai accent) my car's damage was focused at ...

Its impossible to say with any certainty whether the statement would be admissible or not. Theres lots of case law surrounding statement admissibility and its always very dependent on beliefs and explanations provided during the voir dire. If you feel the statement is problematic to your daughters defence, then you may want to consult with a legal ...

Why did you have a written statement with you when you went to the police? Were you (or your daughter) asked to write one out by the police?

Regardless of whether theres other traffic on the road or not, youre still required by law to turn into the nearest lane. Your dash cam evidence wont help you in Court because it will merely confirm that you made an illegal turn. Any issues you have regarding the officers behaviour are best dealt with through the police agency he works for. An ...