Search found 2111 matches

ricknu wrote:I wonder if someone could explain this discrepancy..............................

Which discrepancy, the fee? You don't have to pay any fee unless you can't wait for the temporary licence to be mailed to you (probably about a 5 business day wait).

You're correct. The other driver is considered a witness and would be required at trial. The box on the ticket was probably left blank in error, though it's not the type of error that would nullify the ticket. The prosecutor will most likely review the officer's notes and accident report prior to trial and see that the other driver is required for ...

Keep in mind that the law requires even emergency vehicles to stop before going through on a red. Since the cameras are only designed to trip when you enter the intersection above a set speed (typically 25-30 km/hr) it shouldnt have gone off if you proceeded into the intersection from a stop. If you didnt even meet the requirement set out for ...

Electronic disclosure is probably going to become more and more common in all jurisdictions. The MTO has started a big push to make everything electronic. Starting next year, they will only accept electronic copies of accident reports. Im sure theyll start requesting more and more from police in an electronic format.

While paper tickets probably ...

Im also surprised you were charged in the incident. The HTA requires persons opening their vehicle doors to check and see if its safe to do so.

165. No person shall,
(a) open the door of a motor vehicle on a highway without first taking due precautions to ensure that his or her act will not interfere with the movement of or endanger any other ...

Yes, people certainly can be (and have been) charged at collision reporting centres. As always, it's up to the judgement of the investigating officer to determine what charge, if any, is applicable. It's really no different then an accident that's investigated roadside by an officer.

No, only the name of the officer who issued you the ticket will appear on it. The other officer's information/notes would be included in disclosure if you request it.

I've spoken with a few prosecutors lately about the new pretrial resolution options on tickets. Many are saying the best deal they'll offer is on the day of the resolution meeting. They want to discourage people from taking up Court time and inconveniencing witnesses by scheduling unnecessary trials. Come trial they'll either offer a less generous ...

There's lots of case law surrounding your charge and momentary inattention does not necessarily constitute careless driving. I certainly wouldn't plead guilty to the charge as is.

Go by the charge wording on the ticket, not the notice of trial. Trial notice are automated forms that clerks print out. Errors on the trial notice aren't relevant in Court, only the actual ticket itself.

1) It's technically possible but I wouldn't consider it likely. Jail sentences are reserved for serious repeat offenders.
2) That's a decision you'll have to make. You can always consult with a paralegal and see if they have any suggestions. You can then see what the Crown's willing to offer if you simply plea guilty.
3) The Crown will see your ...

Case law has confirmed that section 199 (the requirement to report) applies everywhere, but I'd tend to agree that section 200 does not, since it states highway.

Section 201

201. Every person who, as a result of an accident or otherwise, operates or drives a vehicle or leads, rides or drives an animal upon a highway and thereby damages any shrub, tree, pole, light, sign, sod or other property on the highway or a fence bordering the highway shall forthwith report the damage to a police officer.

Its hard to tell for certain from the picture, but it looks like the red car would have to yield. Once you've made your left turn, you'd already be on the highway/onramp. The red car appears to be merging onto the same road further down, and therefor would have to yield to traffic already on the highway.

I dont disagree whatsoever that signage should follow the OTM when possible. Not only does it help promote safety and consistency, but it also helps create a better sense of fairness in traffic enforcement. The only reason Im being picky in pointing out its relevancy in Court is clarity. I dont want someone preparing their defence under the ...

Are you basing that on the Ontario Traffic Manual? Remember, the OTM is the suggested best practice but not a legal requirement under the HTA. While I dont disagree that signage should comply to the standards set by the Province, for Court purposes typically only the HTA requirements need to be met.

The quoted section would actually be referring to the termination of a school safety zone, not the actual highway itself. Its basically saying when the school safety zone ends, you need to post a new sign with the (presumably) higher limit.

In response to the next lowest ticket: my total payable right now is 110.00 so if I plea guilty, the city gets $110.00 from me but I am paying thousands for the next few years in insurance hikes (no affect for the city). A charge of no seatbelt as a passenger is 110.00 but does not affect insurance so the city still receives 110.00 (same benefit ...

1) No, that wouldn't be a fatal error.
2) Search through the forum. There's several threads explaining how to best proceed with fatal errors.
3) Insurance providers look at all convictions, regardless of demerit points. Getting it reduced from a 3 to 2 demerit point offence would make no difference.

You were probably charged under section 144(9) "Proceed contrary to sign at intersection". The offence carries two demerit points. I'm guessing the officer either made a mistake with the section or his messy writing looks like a 5 instead of a 9.

Explain to the clerk that you're seeking a first attendance meeting with the prosecutor (it will need to be scheduled for a later date). On that date the Crown will likely offer you a deal.

While I dont disagree that the drivers speed was excessive for the conditions, Im still not certain thats sufficient for a careless driving conviction. R v. McNeil (2012) and R v. McLean (2011) both deal with drivers going too fast for the conditions, but the defendant is only convicted in the one of the cases. The Courts seem to be looking for an ...

I dont believe the video would be sufficient evidence of a mechanical defect. A certified mechanic would need to inspect the vehicle to make that kind of determination. The noise seems to occur when the vehicle drives over a manhole. When I watch the video I get the impression that the back simply slid out on the wet roads. The bump from the ...

mikarakolev wrote:I picked to talk to prosecutor and there was no deal but only information that my ticket can go from my 110 on the ticket to up to 1000 and from 2 to 6 points.

That's incorrect. The charge of turn not in safety carries 2 demerit points. Even if you're convicted at trial, the prosecutor cannot request additional demerit points.

As I responded in your other post, the other drivers actions were on their face, perfectly legal. The shoulder was paved and the vehicle he was passing had signalled its intention to turn left. Perhaps it could be argued the pass wasnt done in safety since it resulted in a collision, but you had an equal onus to make sure your turn was safe.

In ...

Since he was passing a vehicle that was signalling to turn left and the shoulder was paved, the action was lawful.

What does the police report show? Your version or the other drivers?

If the police report agrees with your version of events, the other drive should be deemed at fault.

Fault determination rules can be found here: http://www.ibc.ca/en/car_insurance/documents/brochure/on-fault-determination-rules.pdf

Section 10(7) would appear to to describe ...

There are no demerit points associated with any of your charges. Quite likely the Crown will offer you some type of plea deal where they drop one or two charges in exchange for a guilty plea on remaining offences.

Section 46 deals with suspensions due to default fines. Your licence can be suspended for any outstanding Highway Traffic Act fine, regardless if the offence occurred on a bicycle or not.

The Ontario Court of Appeal released two decisions of note today regarding cell phone case law.

The first deals with the Crowns appeal of R v. Kazemi. Kazemi was an earlier case in which it was ruled that momentarily holding or moving a cell phone was not illegal. The Court of Appeal has disagreed, stating "Road safety is best ensured by a ...