Search found 162 matches

It is pretty common occurrence. In most situation police officer WILL issue you a new summons. Police may do so within 6 month or in case of the charges under Compulsory Insurance Act much longer.

Sounds like a "momentary inattention" case. You should have a decent case in court.

You should speak to a paralegal to assist you with this case. You may also attempt to get your G licence by trial time.

I would not even go to court. If you show up and argue on motion to quash the certificate it SHOULD be amended and section changed to reflect 136(1)a. Provincial Offences Act makes provisions on these arguments.

This mistake IS fatal and winable at the APPEALS.

You should get professional help before you go to the set date court. Your appearance in court is not just to set another date but to give the court jurisdiction over the case. In many situations "information" does not match "summons to defendant" resulting in a conflict. In that case new summons has to be issued and the court does not have ...

Follow too closely charge is very subjective. There are no defined distances that represent "too close". You have lots of outs on this one. You should retain professional help as the argument can get complicated.

Winable case. I could have lots of fun with this one.

It is a good practice to arrive in court 15-30 minutes before your scheduled time. This will give you an opportunity to discuss your case with prosecutor and prepare for trial.

In my opinion you did the right thing. Going through an amber light is specifficaly prohibited by s. 144.15 of the HTA. If you could stop safely than you HAD to stop on amber light otherwise you would be charged with Amber Light Fail to Stop.

In any event, Careless is a bit of a stretch in this one.

Yes, this is deffinitely an issue. If you have sellected NOT to challenge officer's evidence he is not required to attend court. Your trial cannot proceed without the officer in this situation.

You will face have choices:
1. Ask for another date due to your misunderstanding
2. Resolve the matter with prosecution.

Provincial Offences Act can be confusing at times to an untrained individuals. It is always best to allow professionals handle court work. It would be shame if win-win situation turned out to be oops...I did not know it may turn out that way.

P.S. Look out for an amendment after service.

Interesting read. You should consult with paralegals in Mississauga. Based on your posts I assume it was officer #2448. He writes a lot of tickets in that area. You may have an argument on Appeal.

I always tell peoaple NOt to plead guilty unless you absolutely have to. I never had any difficulties in Caledon. You should make some choices and at least collect disclosure before you start you option.

i understand that I ended up too close to the other driver

I am not suggesting that you were following too close. In light of that vehicles behavior "resanoable and prudent driver" would have taken some precautions to avoid being involved in this situation. You certainly have a defence but the question is will it be accepted in light of the ...

since speeding is a strict liability offence

Respectfully diagree. Speeding is an "absolute liability offence". It is a well established fact and was ruled as such in accordance with Sault Ste. Marie test.

Both of you have a defence to the charge. Section 142(1) is an interesting one and is a strict liability offence. You should speak to paralegal to assist you with these cases. I also suggest to read the charging section to see that this charge is very subjective. You can read more about <a href="http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic79.html ...

Based on your story it does not add up to driving with reasonable consideration to others using the highway. You have a mountain to climb. I would not be so sure that it is an easy case. At the end of the day you had other alternatives, especially, after you had an opportunity to observe unusual driving before the collision.

Would a reasonable ...

Your next appearance is going to be a Set Date court. On that appearance you should be given disclsoure in court (otherwise you would have to request it afterwords) and be able to set a date for your trial. I suggest you DO NOT set a date for your trial but ask for several weeks adjournment(additional time) so you could discuss your disclosure ...

In this case you were already found guilty and your licence is suspended for 6 month. The only way to proceed to the next step is to file an appeal. You have only 30 days to do so from the date of the conviction. If you outside of the 30 days then you have to file a motion to extend time to file an appeal.

Appeals are totally different from trial ...

Before you choose to plead guilty or talk to a prosecutor I suggest to consult with a professionals. You should deffinitely order disclosure and ensure that there is sufficient evidence against you.

Congrats on your win.

FYI.- set fine for your offence was wrong. It should have been $260 and total payable #325. Your ticket was wrong to begin with. Set fine for this offence was changed effective 01 January 2010.

You can find more information on <a href="http://www.trafficlawparalegal.com/red_light_tickets.aspx">Red Light Tickets</a> here.

The question is did you drive according to the road/weather conditions? Rearend collisions in itself do not constitute Careless Driving.
The term "due care" has to be looked at here. Attempt to explain to your self as to why this collision occurred (besides wet road and poor driving conditions). If your answer goes along with what any other ...

R. v. Ereddia, 2006 ONCJ 303, at Paragraph 6 wrote:
Careless driving, generally speaking, requires proof of a departure from the standard of care that a reasonably prudent driver would have exercised in the circumstances, and normally involves, I would think, conduct that includes other less serious Highway Traffic Act infractions.


This is ...

By the way, PM me if you want to know the specific location, offense, or the officer's name.

Let me guess......Toronto.....Downtown......Lakeshore and Young (or really close to it)....officer....5142.....starts with S......s.

Most unrepresented defendant attempt to fight their traffic tickets without full understanding on what steps need to be ...

I have to disagree with the comment that Follow too closely is an included offence for Careless Driving. That is simply INCORRECT.

The test for an included offence is:

...one must necessarily commit the offence of ....... before the offence of ...........could be made out.

Follow too closely tickets are very difficult to prove. I agree with Chris, competent paralegal should be able to assist you in this matter.

T - 120 km/hr L- 120 km/hr
P- 83 km/hr
CHAT
CWVO

T= Targeted
L= Locked
P=Patrol Speed

"M" and a cross is a way for the officer to note down that there was one person in the vehicle being male in the driver's seat.

Go to court and file a Notice of Intention to appear. The clerk will stamp your ticket and either issue a notice of trial on the spot or advise you that it will be mailed to you.

Good luck.

If you get convicted of the Careless Driving charge most insurance companies will place you in a high risk category that will cost you thousands of dollars increase in insurance premium.

Your statement will play a major role in this prosecution. However, there are defences available. You should consult with legal representative to increase your ...