Search found 2111 matches

The fact that the other driver was impaired wont in itself clear you of fault. The two common options for careless charges are to plead out to a lesser charge (fail to yield from private drive would be applicable in your case) or go to trial and fight it outright. Since the ramifications for careless convictions are so serious, most people would ...

Its kind of a funny decision. The Courts agree the speed limit signs are unenforceable, but then go on to say the area defaults to a 50 km/hr zone anyways without signs.

Its nice to see a published decision, but I believe the Courts always considered the signs unenforceable.

Yes, it is illegal. It falls under section 74 of the HTA.

Windows to afford clear view
74. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon a highway,
(a) unless the windshield and the windows on either side of the compartment containing the steering wheel are in such a condition as to afford the driver a clear view to the front and side of the ...

1) An error regarding the time on the ticket can be amended at trial.
2) You'd have to review disclosure and see what the officer's evidence is to determine how likely it is you can argue he obtained a reading from the wrong vehicle. Most likely the officer was using radar if he was also in motion (laser is for stationary use). Radar's accuracy ...

The fact you live on the street isn't legal justification for ignoring the sign, nor is the fact you've ignored it repeatedly before. If you want to fight the charge in Court, you'll have to find another defence.

Talk with the Crown about your situation on your first appearance date. They will probably offer you some type of plea deal, where they will drop one or more charges and/or reduce your fine in exchange for a guilty plea. The other option is hire a paralegal and see if there's anything they can fight the charges on, but that can be expensive.

If ...

First, please dont type in ALL CAPS. Its bad form and very hard to read.

What does your disclosure say regarding the actual offence you were charged with? Does the officer claim you didnt signal or changed lanes in an unsafe manner (or both)?

Im not following. Did your mother in law cross with an actual pedestrian "walk" signal? Or simply when there was an advanced green?

If she crossed when there was an advanced (or flashing) green then that was illegal. Since the advance signal is supposed to facilitate turning vehicles, pedestrians are required to wait. In that situation its also ...

Did they just take your word for it? Or did they notice there was a mistake?

Impaired operation is a criminal offence, not a provincial Highway Traffic Act offence. Your friend should consult with a lawyer.

Id start by requesting disclosure to see what evidence the officer has to support a careless driving charge. Based on what youve said, I certainly dont feel the charge is warranted nor would you be convicted. First attendance meeting might not hurt, see what the Crown says. If they feel the charge is unwarranted they might simply withdraw it.

I'm going to disagree about the timing. Radar/laser readings are near instantaneous. Four and a half seconds should be more then enough time to get two speed readings.

I personally believe your FM transmitter would clearly fall under section 78.1(2) but thats not the section you were charged under. If youre serious about fighting the charge then it might be worth consulting with representation. I dont know how much benefit your cell phone bill would be, since theres lots of things you can do with your phone that ...

Id say its certainly worth looking into. Maybe its just a case of fumbling fingers typing in your plate by mistake (which sucks), but make sure. Many of the ticketing devices take a photo of the car as well, which would certainly confirm if its your vehicle or not.

Do you have any old vehicle plates by chance? Did you leave any plates on an old ...

Interesting. Ive also seen apps where you mount your phone to the windshield so that it will record your driving in real time with the GPS speed superimposed. Mix that with the OBD2 data and I think youd have a pretty good argument. Of course the difficulty would be explaining the technology to the Courts and getting it admitted.

One note of ...

-If i fight this case(which i choose to) & hopefully win will the FAULT be 50/50 in the EYES of my insurance company? instead of 100% right now on me.
-should i hire someone to defend me? (being that the case is very serious)
-What are my chances to win ?
-Can the other party sue?

1) No, insurance companies determine fault based on the fault ...

As stated above, the fact that the red light camera didnt go off isnt proof in itself. I dont know about Toronto, but several cities rotate them around so theres not always a camera in a box. They also require a minimum speed to trip (aprox 25-30 km/hr), so if you proceed into the intersection below that speed it wouldnt activate.

I think your ...

My question iss: do I have any chance to have this careless driving charge reduced to lesser one, for example 'Change lane not in safety' and asking advice how to act: go to trial or request early resolution...

If there's no accident and nobody was hurt, I'd say it's pretty much a certainty you'll be offered a plea deal.

If youre content ...

As stated above, errors on the notice of trial are irrelevant, only errors on the ticket itself are applicable.
In terms of the ticket, I dont believe an incorrect section is a fatal error, especially if the charge wording is correct. It could certainly be amended if you go to trial.
The only other possibility is to force a fatal error by ignoring ...

Arguably that monkey might be a better driver then some of the more stellar Torontonian motorists I've seen.

That is correct. Ontario has a reciprocal agreement with New York, Michigan and all other Provinces.

Request early resolution and see what they offer. If you don't like the deal, you can still go to trial.

The wording on that link is a little confusing. You can actually proceed by way of Part III summons for any offence. Common reasons why that I can think of:
1) Too much time has passed to serve regular ticket.
2) A mix of minor and more serious offences (i.e. 15 over and no insurance). In such a case all offences should be on Part IIIs so theyre ...

I would hazard a guess that most police officers at some point in their lives have been involved in an accident or been at the receiving end of a traffic ticket. It certainly doesnt nullify their observations or credibility in Court. If it did, I think thered be very few officers left to conduct traffic enforcement.

For the officers charges to ...

It's possible. I think the more common plea deal is to drop the stunt driving charge but leaving the speeding offence as is (68 over in your case). It's still a terrible conviction in terms of insurance rates, but you wouldn't be looking at an additional licence suspension.

What's required to raise reasonable doubt varies from case to case. You'll have to see what the officer's evidence is and go from there. You can request disclosure and get a copy of the officer's notes. I'd also recommend reading through other posts relating to stop sign offences and seeing what strategies people have used to defend themselves.

Insurance companies are overseen by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. They set the rules that Insurance companies must follow within the Province.

I'm not familiar with the contents of OAP1, but any charges laid by police would be based on the Highway Traffic Act, not insurance regulations. Insurance companies determine fault based on ...

You're correct in that there is no requirement to stop for "X" seconds, you simply need to stop. You can proceed immediately assuming there's no other vehicles or persons with right of way.

I'm not sure I follow why you think the jerking motion of your car would have confused the officer. If I understand correctly, the motion you're describing ...

One word of caution, some insurance providers may consider 35 over a major conviction versus your current 14 over which would be a minor conviction.

Id check with your insurance provider (anonymously if needed) to make sure both convictions would be treated the same. Most companies set the limit at 50+ over, but a few start at 35.

Such a device wouldnt need to prove your speed with absolute certainty; it would merely need to raise reasonable doubt.

I think the big issue is that the technology would have to be something accepted and understood by the Courts. Merely saying my GPS said I was only going "X" wouldnt be sufficient. How the technology works, its accuracy and ...