Ontario Highway Traffic Act

Unfortunately, in accordance with section 16(4) of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668: Fault Determination Rules, your daughter would be 100% at fault (where your daughter is automobile "A" and the other driver is automobile "B"):
16.(4) If automobile "A" is leaving a parking space and fails to yield the right of way to automobile "B" on a feeder lane or a ...

You can submit a disclosure request to the prosecutor's office at the courthouse that you filed your ticket.

If the court was just relying on the officer's testimony, this approach may work.

But you mentioned that there is a DVD. If this is shown in court, this will still clearly show you committing the offence despite casting doubt on the officer's testimony.

I would still try the approach mentioned by Zatota.

But I would look further. For example, I ...

Congratulations! Thank you for coming back to share with us!

You should note that adjournments may try to be rescheduled based on the officer's schedule. So it may not work to ask for an adjournment and hope that the officer will not show up again.

I would think that the officer would need a warrant to seize the dashcam (or to look through the data), unless you voluntarily give it to them.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think if they charge you with a criminal offence (i.e. dangerous driving, impaired driving) and arrest/detain you, then I believe that they can search and seize items in your ...

You can refer to the case that I referenced in my post (http://www.trafficticketfighters.ca/wp- ... -phone.pdf) to see that it is possible to cast doubt on whether or not it is a phone even with clear evidence from the officer saying that it is a cell phone.

Based on the information that you provided, I believe that you were charged with going 20km/h over the speed limit (100km/h in 80km/h) which carries 3 demerit points with it. Be aware that $95 is the set fine ($75 + $5 court fees + $15 victim surcharge). This amount will increase if you are convicted at trial based on a formula set in section 128 ...

I'm going to quote what I said on a similar post for driving with handheld device:

Although it may be difficult to successfully dispute this ticket, the prosecution still needs to prove the essential elements of the offence which is usually done by the officer's testimony. In cross-examination, it is possible to bring one or more of these ...

If you had a ticket with Option 2: Early Resolution Meeting with Prosecutor, then that's how you would get a meeting to discuss the possible resolution of your matter.

If this was not an option on your ticket, then early resolution may not be available in your area. Alternatively, in some areas, you request an early resolution meeting after ...

The ticket is still valid.

There is no error in simply saying "Highway 401".

Even if it were to be considered an error, it is insignificant and it would not affect your ability to prepare a defence. It is still clear where the offence allegedly took place and the jurisdiction.

OTD Legal wrote:A quashed or withdrawn offence can still be reserved within the appropriate period of reservice.

Yes, you can be served again with a summons up to 6 months after the date of the offence, which is the limitation period provided by the Provincial Offences Act.

In the past, I've just sent in a letter (by mail or fax) to the courthouse - something along the lines of what I attached below.

Dismissed:
A justice can dismiss a charge if:
- the prosecution does not appear at trial
- the prosecution offers no evidence or insufficient evidence at trial
- the defendant is found not guilty at trial

Withdrawn ...

Yes, you can request a transcript of the hearing. The transcript will likely be short and not cost very much money.

Alternatively, you can request for a "minute" from the court in accordance with section 62 of the Provincial Offences Act :
" Minute of conviction
62. Where a court convicts a defendant or dismisses a charge, a minute of the ...

Ignore my previous post. The section of the Highway Traffic Act would not apply in this situation.

It just seems to be a poorly constructed "intersection" within a parking lot. The side with no stop sign is just a parking row, so it is implied that the drivers coming from that direction should yield, similar to how there is no stop sign at every ...