Ontario Highway Traffic Act

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 ...