Ontario Highway Traffic Act

-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 ...