Ontario Highway Traffic Act

oh ok.... i see what you mean.

i dont know what to say... i wasnt speeding. i had my cruise control set at 115 and i know everyone say this but for real i wasnt speeding. i dont know how to prove that though

I suggest you dont mention that you were "speeding" at 115 km/hr. This proves the crowns case as to speeding allegation. Quantum of speed ...

There are lots of defences to this scenario. In fact if other vehicles allowed you to enter the highway you have complied with the section. Immediacy is also a factor at the time of "entering" the highway. You have a good argument. Good luck.

First off thats not a Canadian Manual.

Second since Jan 2010 Police don't have to estimate the speed, just observe a vehicle in excess of speed limit.

Third since Aug 2010 that entire tracking history section is removed from manual.

Fourth, don't be surprised if original 88 in 60 speed is amended in court.



Please do not mislead the ...

I would not attorn the jurisdiction to this one and see if it gets quashed. If not file an appeal. WI Win situation in any event (unless you make a mistake and actually show up for your trial).

With all respect to previous posts - this charge is a WINNER. There will be no trial (unless you make a mistake and ask for one) and you will walk away with clear record and no fine. Wrong set fine! Let it go and File an appeal.
Good luck.

I'd hate to pay for something I didn't do but I fear going to court may be more costly in the long run. I don't feel comfortable using a he said/she said defence. If the investigating officer (nice guy) gave me 3 tickets after hearing my version of events and inspecting my vehicle, I have to think he believes the other guy over me. Wouldn't the ...

Cornwall is not an easy jurisdiction. Try for 15 over in advance of your trial date.

This charge is not "might be beatable" it "is" beatable. As I mentioned in the previous post read legislation.

As to the other items, you may have a good argument. Testing, road test, no entry in notes, etc. That what we do daily and you should be aware that all of your raised issues are not new and were argued many times. Read some case law on point and go for it.

Good luck.

2. Disclosure. I requested disclosure for both tickets on separate forms, one page for each. When they supplied disclosure by email, they included:
Request page for insurance disclosure only
"Copies" of both tickets - more on that later
copies of notes
radar manual
They did not specifically say anywhere that this is also disclosure for the ...

Based on your explanation of the events, this charge should be beaten in court. I would not consider ANY plea. Read the legislation (charging section).

Single motor vehicle collisions have always been interesting. What has to be viewed here is your conduct. Was it reasonable? Would a reasonable and prudent person done the same?

Good trial matter in my opinion.

If your entire defence is based in an attempt to persuade the court that someone (officer) must have necessarily seen what you suggest he had to see - you in trouble.

The officer is likely to testify that he had unobstructed clear view of the intersection, including its stop line and the sign itself. Thats it.

I would suggest to concentrate on ...

That is pretty interesting statement

they said they could get the ticket knocked down to a by law .

I assume there was a collision? In my 10 years of "arguing" trials i would not be able to advise you on availability of the resolution to a By-Law charge unless prosecution really does not have a case (why would you plea then). In most ...

Paying a ticket is never the best option. You are facing a minor offence and should take all available steps to attempt a win. There are number of ways you can win: disclosure, delays, errors, non attendance of officer, etc.