Search found 2111 matches

Again, your scan is a copy of the ticket that the officer uses for his NOTES. The officer can add whatever information he wants after the stop. Clearly there is additional information added directly to the note copy that won't be on the original ticket, since the information was made for the officer's recollection. It's not an actual amendment to ...

did the Officer follow the 'Rules of Evidence' and have the residue in the can tested to ensure it was actually alcohol?

In regards to testing the can for alcohol, I'd say that usually isn't required for Provincial Offences Court. While it will be dependent on the totality of the circumstances, the officer only needs to show beyond a reasonable ...

The charge of unnecessary slow driving would typically be served on a regular ticket, with a $85/$110 fine and 2 demerit points.

I wouldn't say it's a common charge, but certainly people have been charged with it.

I think without the device actually being found, it would be very hard for you to be convicted. I'd request disclosure and see what the actual evidence against you is.

To be clear, speeding less than 50 km/hr over the limit is absolute liability. Speeding more than 50 km/hr over the limit is strict liability. This area is ripe for a constitutional challenge. If you have $10,000 or $20,000 you could do it :)

Is speeding 50+ strict liability? Or simply the related stunt driving charge? I was under the impression ...

You're not stuck with a plea option, it's really up to you if you want to go to trial or not. In terms of the officer's evidence, they don't write down every detail verbatim. You won't know exactly what their evidence is until you hear it at trial. If your certain it was green and you and your friends can confidently testify to that, maybe you ...

Different jurisdictions have different options on the back. What you want to request is an early resolution meeting with the Crown. Typically they will offer you a plea deal (reduced speed in exchange for a guilty plea). Unless options 2 states early resolution meeting (which yours doesn't), you will want to select Option 3. This doesn't mean you ...

Can I simply argue that he observed me first and then the light according to the order of the disclosure.

And how it mentions the rain and poor visibility, whereas I, and my 2 witnesses in the car felt no impairment in visibility as he might have since it is mentioned.

If he only observed the traffic light after your car entered the ...

Your questions aren't simple yes/no answers. Multiple witnesses could certainly raise reasonable doubt, but it's very dependent on their evidence and how they manage during cross examination. If the Justice of the Peace does find you and your witnesses reasonable and credible, then hopefully reasonable doubt would be raised and you'd be found not ...

The onus is on you to yield to through traffic, not the other way around. I understand what you're saying, but you don't gain possession of the road simply because you got there first. You may be able to argue due diligence (i.e. took all reasonable steps to check for traffic and merge safely) but I think it would be difficult.

In terms of ...

I'd just point out that it's legal to pass on the right a vehicle turning to the left (or signalling to do so). I think a charge of turn not in safety would have been more appropriate, and likely what you'll be offered by the Crown.

There are often various charges that can be covered under a single section of the HTA. Court notices are often automatically generated and they simply go by the section, not the specific charge wording of your offence. The wording on the notices therefor can be different then the actual ticket itself.

In your case, driving without a valid permit ...

Towing at owner's expense often requires working out a deal with the tow company. Otherwise they may insist on the property owner paying the towing fee up front with hopeful repayment once vehicle owner claims it.

Here's the sections you're looking for...

However my difficulty is finding the section that governs obstructing the highway, or more accurately obstructing the flow of traffic.

Unnecessary slow driving prohibited
132. (1) No motor vehicle shall be driven on a highway at such a slow rate of speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable ...

Certainly sounds like the incorrect charge. The officer could lay the new charge, but it's unlikely. They have six months from the date of the offence to do so.

Unfortunately even if you exercised due diligence, the offence remains one of absolute liability. Exercising due diligence doesnt make it a strict liability matter, its simply what the Courts/Legislation have determined it to be. All the case law for speeding have shown it to be an absolute liability offence.

You'd have to research case law, but I'm guessing it's not a violation of Section 7 or it would have been repealed ages ago.

There is a slightly higher threshold for charges that may involve incarceration, because unlike regular tickets where if you fail to show you're convicted, there will be a trial held even in your absence prior to any ...

Driving under suspension in Ontario is not an absolute liability offence, but rather a strict liability offence. Therefor that particular argument would not apply.

And just to clarify, an 11b Charter argument is for unreasonable delay going to trial, not for all Charter violations. If driving under suspension was an absolute liability offence ...

Yes, if she can provide relevant evidence towards the offence, then you can call her as a witness. Once she's finished providing evidence for you, the Crown will have the opportunity to cross examine her and ask their questions.

I believe that's simply a reference to the material you're trying to obtain a reading from. I know in surveying, the measuring devices have different ranges depending on if you're trying to obtain a reading from a reflector (the guy holding the reflective sign) versus a non reflective surface (a concrete wall). I'm sure LIDAR is the same, better ...

Some very recent case law regarding cell phones.

The short synopsis is that briefly holding your cell phone is lawful. The accused in this matter was observed with her phone in her hand at a red light. She claimed to have simply just picked it up off the floor.

From the decision: Given the objective is to promote road safety by banning resort to ...

While the driving is idiotic, I salute them for filming the offence and uploading it to the Internet. I wish more people would voluntarily provide inculpatory statements to the police about crimes they've committed.

If so, would this not open the door to a "and NOW I am going to teach you!" reaction when the driver decides to plead not guilty? If this happens within the six months, the officer can then decide to introduce additional charges "from left field"? In the case outlined above, can it really be sufficient that the officer makes a note to the effect ...

Just wondering what the law would be on having your sticker both on your plate and in your registration.
Decatur posted the main section, but the requirement to have it on the permit itself is covered by Regulation 628 (a subsection of the HTA).

Link: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-628/latest/rro-1990-reg-628.html

Section 6 ...

I've never heard of jail time for a first offence. Likelihood of a plea deal is a bit more difficult to say.

If the ticket wasn't reduced at the roadside, chances are quite good the prosecutor will offer you a reduced speed/fine in exchange for a guilty plea.

The big issue for you as a G2 driver is that 34 over carries 4 points, which would result in a 30 day suspension upon conviction. If you can get it reduced to 29 over or less, you'll only have 3 ...

To clarify a little, it's section 33(1) of HTA regulation 340/94, not 33(1) of the actual HTA. Regulations are basically subsections of the HTA that go into more detailed specifics.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o ... 40-94.html

Usually if the ticket hasn't already been reduced at the side of the road, the Crown will offer you a reduction.

It might vary from one jurisdiction to the next, but basic disclosure would be ready by the first attendance meeting. The Crown should have at the very least a copy of the officer's notes and any related reports. Without that basic information, they're not really in a position to offer any deals or reductions.

Police have up to six months to lay an additional charge. That being said I`d say it`s extremely rare for them to actually do so. More likely the fact that you were already given a break for speeding means it`s less likely the Crown would offer any type of reduced fine or plea deal for the stop sign offence.