Search found 2111 matches

1234567890 wrote:Could i bring it to court and say i had my seatbeat on and happened to take it off when we stopped for the program ?

If that's the truth.

As for the marijuana, the fact that you were already given a break on a Criminal offence probably means it's less likely the Crown will offer you any type of deal on your seat belt ticket.

Its possible to get the charges reopened with sufficient cause. Do you have any documentation showing he had agreed to represent you and would attend Court on your behalf? Youre going to need more than simply your word to satisfy the Courts.

I don't believe failing to remain carries an automatic suspension, but as a G2 driver your licence gets suspended for 30 days with any 4+ point conviction.

To avoid the time and expense of a trial, the Crown will frequently offer you some kind of deal, known as a plea bargain. The Crown will offer you a particular concession in exchange for you agreeing to plead guilty. Common concessions are dropping one or more charges when you have multiple offences, letting you plead to a less serious charge and ...

What section of the evidence act are you referring to?

How much help a paralegal can provide would be very case specific. Sometimes they can help you beat the charge outright, sometimes they can negotiate a plea deal to a lesser offence. It will really depend on the strength of the evidence against you and willingness of the Crown to negotiate.

In terms of demerit points, theyre non-negotiable. The ...

Demerit points remain on your record for two years from the date of the offence. Your actual conviction record is for life. Insurance providers may choose to overlook the conviction if its more than three years old, but it will still be there.

I believe they would be considered Provincial Offences Officers and their authority would come from the Provincial Offences and Environmental Protection Acts. Plate queries and vehicle stops would be lawful, though I'm not sure about their authority to detain you for an extended period of time based on HTA violations. Of course if you knowingly ...

1) Failing to remain – 7 points; fine of $400 to $2,000; up to six months in jail; licence suspension for up to 2 years.
Left turn fail to avoid collision – 3 points; set fine of $110 (but the Crown can ask for an increased fine).
2) The fines/consequences are typically reduced on a first offence, but its case dependent. The fact that you left the ...

By your own admission the officer had just observed you driving without your seatbelt. The fact that you had parked and exited your vehicle prior to actually being stopped does not free you of your legal obligations as a motorist. Theres lots of case law surrounding the doctrine of "fresh pursuit", which covers scenarios such as yours and polices ...

I'd try meeting with the prosecutor before hiring anyone. I think there's a very good chance they'd let you plea to one charge in exchange for dropping the other two. Certainly one of the ownership tickets should be cancelled at the very least. Seems like a pretty cheap and pointless ticket to have given out.

Just a question,why is it ok for the police to lie in order to get a signed statement yet the OP cannot?Not trying to start an argument here just trying to understand.Regardless of tactic if the truth comes out......it's the truth.
Is it myth that the police can do this and I'm not saying they shouldn't.If I were to be a victim I wouldn't care ...

1) Speeding tickets can't be served by mail. There is an exception for photo radar tickets, but that doesn't apply in your case.
2) Possibly. The officer has 30 days to serve the offence notice on you, or up to six months to proceed by way of summons. Typically though if you're not served at the side of the road they probably won't bother unless it ...

I give the OP credit. I don't think he's downplaying his past mistakes, he's simply enquiring if there's any way to proceed with lifting the lifetime prohibition. As stated above, there's certainly lots of people who ignore Court orders and drive anyway. I'd rather see someone take steps to drive legally if possible, rather than keep skirting the ...

It doesn't sound like fraud, you fully admit you turned in front of the vehicle. Simply suggesting it may be fraud would not work as a defence in Court.

To have the charge reduced, you would need to meet with the Crown before the trial and see if you can work out a deal. Turn not in safety would be a more appropriate charge, with less points a ...

The fact that the accident was relatively minor doesn't negate the careless charge in itself. The fact that you failed to notice a vehicle stopping in front of you and struck it would be the argument that you were driving without due care.

In terms of insurance, any conviction is bad, but careless is considered a major infraction and typically ...

No, passing a vehicle is not legal justification for speeding. It would not be accepted as a defence in Court.

I think it's pretty much a guarantee that the Crown would be willing to plead it down to much less serious offence.

Not saying I disagree about the vehicle impoundment, but the initial 7 day suspension should NOT impact your insurance rates.

The FSCO oversees insurance in Ontario and they state the following:

An administrative lapse or a suspension of a drivers licence is a documented drivers licence lapse for administrative or medical reasons that are not ...

Only the driver would receive any demerit points for a seat belt offence.

In terms of a fine, you can try and work out a plea deal with the prosecutor for a reduced fine, or you can explain to the JP if/when found guilty about your situation in hopes for a reduced fine. You can also request additional time to pay.

If you go to trial, it's very ...

Just to expand a little, that section of the charter doesnt prevent you from being charged with the two offences, but it does mean you shouldnt be convicted of both. The most common example in Court that I can think of is impaired drivers, where most are charged with impaired and over 80, but can only be convicted of one of the offences.

Any HTA conviction, regardless of fine, will show on your abstract. I'm not sure what you actually plead guilty to, but it will be on your abstract.

You need to surrender your licence to the MTO, not the police. I'm not sure how soon they'd be aware of the conviction/suspension and accept your licence.

In terms of insurance, I'm sure you'll be able to get some, but it could be expensive. It varies so much from one provider to the next that you'd have to call to find out.

I'm confused by your post. You say the parking is legal, but then say there's 3000 violations. What is the violation? And what is a "pull off zone"?

If people are parked lawfully, I'm not sure what you expect the police to do. If there's no violation, there's nothing for them to enforce. You'd have to convince the township that the parking ...

Police don't have discretion regarding the suspension, it's automatically applied by the Ministry upon conviction.

You won't be able to surrender your licence and start the suspension until you either admit guilt and pay your ticket or get found guilty at trial.

It's not a criminal offence, it's a provincial offence. Regardless, you could lose your licence if convicted.

Most of the firms you're asking about are paralegals. I'd simply shop around, see what they have to say and what they charge.

To the best of my knowledge they would be different plates since they're issued on the spot. Personalized plates can be be replaced, but even then I think you get temporary plates in the interim since they need to be ordered and manufactured.

No points for either ticket, but any conviction can still impact your insurance rates.

Quite likely if you have a resolution meeting with the Crown, they would at the very least drop one ticket in exchange for a guilty plea on the other.

Driving without insurance is what's known as a strict liability offence. That means that not knowing you were uninsured is a possible defence, but only if you exercised due diligence. In short, you'd need to show the Court that you took all reasonable steps to obtain insurance for your motor vehicle and had every reason to believe you were still ...