Search found 2111 matches

Actually, if you request a trial and fail to attend, you have to pay additional court costs. It's a minimal amount (I believe $5) but still slightly cheaper to deal with it before your trial day.

It's up to the discretion of the Crown. I've heard of fines being halved, but there's no guarantee as to the amount.

If you plead guilty or are found guilty, you can also advise the Justice of the Peace during sentencing of any reasons why the fine should be lowered (i.e. some type of financial hardship such as unemployment, etc.). You can also ...

Probably the best free public database would be CanLII (http://www.canlii.org/en/).

It doesn't have all published decisions, but does seem to have a lot of the more major ones.

Edit: Oops, sorry, missed that you already tried that database.

To expand on Bear's last post, crossing a solid yellow line in Ontario is not illegal in itself. Such markings are considered more for reference and are not legally enforceable. The legality of passing is determined by meeting the conditions Bear outlined and/or signage prohibiting passing, etc.

I don't know what the officer would be referring to as there is no simple "trick" to beat the charge. The only way the owner isn't responsible would be if the vehicle had been stolen/taken without consent at the time of the actual offence.

If you want to fight the charge outright, the best starting point would be to request disclosure and see ...

1) Since the driver cannot be identified with a red light camera ticket, there are no demerit points, just a fine. I believe the fine is $325.
2) No, that would only come into play if you were stopped by the police and identified as the actual driver.
3) Typically they will offer you a reduced fine in exchange for pleading guilty.

Most insurance providers look at all HTA convictions, regardless if the offence carries demerit points. You'd have to check with your provider to be certain, but chances are your charge will count as a third offence.

In my experience, the prosecutor will typically offer you a significantly reduced fine. Dropping the charge outright seems to be ...

A quick look at the intersection using Google street view shows a no u-turn sign for southbound traffic on Brimley, but not other directions. Is that the direction you were traveling? You're correct in that the sign you're describing indicates to keep right of the traffic island. A no u-turn sign would be an upside down U shaped arrow with a red ...

The plea deal is unlikely to make any difference to your insurance provider. Theyd likely treat either offence as a minor conviction. Im not saying you should just pay the fine, but the plea deal doesnt really benefit you much as it stands right now. Are they willing to offer a reduced fine?

I agree that the accident itself isn't directly applicable since it occurred off the highway, but Id still argue the rest of the accuseds actions would be sufficient grounds to lay the charge. Though unintentional, the accused entered, crossed and drove off the highway while not in control of her vehicle. Is that sufficient for conviction? I dont ...

I fully agree that the fine seems very high, especially when you think that most traffic offences that put people in danger arent nearly that high.

In terms of your defence, typically markings on the roadway are irrelevant, only the actual signage is legally enforceable. What city did this happen in?

The appeal will be based solely on the transcripts. No need to subpoena anyone.

1) Arguably you were a hazard though, as you had to stop for someone approaching around a bend.
2) A failure on the officers part to record your statement wont limit your defence. In fact the opposite is true. If you had provided one statement at the scene, then it would be very difficult to say anything different in Court.
3) Ive never heard of ...

If the incident had taken place entirely in the school parking lot (i.e practicing there when accident occurred) then I would say the Highway Traffic Act doesn't apply. Since however your daughter crossed the roadway while out of control, the highway traffic act would be applicable. Quite likely a plea deal will be offered, whether you should try ...

Most insurance sites list it as a minor conviction. Always best to check with your provider if you want to be certain though.

The offence is committed when you first enter the intersection, not when you actually clear the intersection.

The charge is "Fail to use lower beam - oncoming". The "commercial vehicle" at the end simply is referring to what you're friend was driving, not the type of oncoming traffic. Commercial vehicles are subject to higher fines then regular vehicles ($240 vs $110) but the demerit points are the same. For this particular charge it would be 2 points.

Random plate queries are lawful. Random traffic stops are also lawful to check on drivers licence, insurance, etc.

Theres significant case law dealing with police authority to stop persons/vehicles, but youd have to be a little more specific as to what exactly youre looking for.

Unfortunately there isnt anything you can do until a ticket is issued, at which time you'd have to go to Court and fight the charge.

Its up to the charging officer. They can proceed by way of Part III summons for any offence but for most minor offences a Part I (a regular ticket) is more common. Typically for 15 over it would be a Part I. A Part III wouldn't be issued unless too much time had passed for a regular ticket or there were other more serious charges laid as well.

Was there a stop sign or traffic light?

The officer probably simply failed to submit the ticket in time, which would be a nice break for you. What the clerk was referring to was the fact that the officer still has six months to lay the charge, but would now have to do so by way of summons instead of a regular ticket.

Even if youre summonsed to Court, you can still simply plead guilty ...

It depends what you're hoping for. At an early resolution meeting they'll probably offer you some type of deal (i.e. less serious charge and/or reduced fine), but if you want to fight the charge outright you'll have to go to trial.

FYI, the fact that you're not familiar with pedestrian crossovers isn't a valid defence in Court. You'll have to find ...

Cell phones are required to be turned off (not just put on silent) in all Courts. The Secretary certainly was within her right to ask you to leave.

I think it would be very difficult to show you were pressured into entering your plea. The Justice of the Peace likely asked you several questions regarding if you understood your options and what ...

Even a speeding conviction (up to 49 over) is typically considered a minor offence. In fact your initial charge (which sounds like a red light offence) would probably be considered minor. To be certain, its always best to confirm with your provider how they classify an offence, but it typically has to be pretty serious before it will have a major ...

1) I agree that the photo (at least your scanned copy) is quite dark. However when I boost the brightness, it still looks to me like your front wheels are behind the stop line. Youre correct in that if you've already entered the intersection its no longer a red light offence. I`m not sure how far in Court you'd get arguing the photo isn't clear ...

New York is one of the two States that has a full reciprocal agreement with Ontario, so any conviction will appear on your Ontario abstract.

To the best of my knowledge, the MTO will try and match it to whatever most closely resembles the offence here in Ontario. I'm not familiar with New York laws, but it sounds like the deal you're being offered ...

The code showing a ticket has been reduced is not always present, its optional on the officers part and sometimes forgotten. You wont really know for certain until you review the officers notes.

Im not aware of any option that would prevent the ticket from showing on your Michigan record short of being found not guilty. The Crown will probably ...

The officer will be required to introduce the video evidence at the very least.

What are you actually being charged with? You say it's for not providing proof of insurance, but I think you're actually being charged for not having insurance (a much more serious fine, $5000 vs $50).

If you got a break with the less serious charge, I'd say just pay it and move on.