Search found 358 matches

I totally get what you want to do. I'd probably do the same thing if I were in your situation.

When you get to the Court today, the prosecutor may have the disclosure for you. If so, he or she will give it to you. The prosecutor will probably also offer you a deal. You can ask for a little time to review the disclosure, in which case the ...

The Prosecutor will have a copy of what was sent to you. Since the information doesn't pertain to you, you haven't received disclosure.

You should be able to make a case for dismissal now. At 17 months and no disclosure despite an adjournment to provide it to you, you should be fine.

I had a case a couple of months ago where I followed up three times and had a call a week before the trial saying the officer still hadn't provided the Prosecutor's Office with disclosure. When I arrived in court, the Prosecutor said it still hadn't been received and she would be withdrawing the charge. I guess it depends on the prosecutor.

They may count.

When you arrive, the prosecutor will probably be sitting at a desk outside the courtroom or at the front of the courtroom. He or she will ask each defendant what he or she wants to do, may offer deals, etc. At that point, you would say that you are asking that the matter be withdrawn for failure to provide disclosure.

The simple fact is you made the turn. You can't "unmake" it. You're lucky the officer didn't charge you with careless driving for reversing while there were people behind you and turning in reverse back onto Scarborough Golf Club Road.

The officer may have had both devices in the car with him. He's likely been trained on both, but his training and certification can be raised during cross examination. You can certainly ask during the trial, if there is one, why he carried both devices

His notes may indicate which device he used. If not, he'll mention it at trial. Again, you may ...

The set fine is established by the Courts as the fine payable for a voluntary guilty plea. If a driver is convicted at trial, the JP can impose the set fine or the fine prescribed in the HTA. It's basically an incentive to plead guilty and save the system time and money.

If you have proof you sent them (e.g., a fax confirmation), you should ask for dismissal.

If there are no fatal errors, you won't have it dismissed unless you or someone acting for you is there.

Has the Prosecutors office replied to your disclosure requests? If so, you know they've been received. You may succeed at having the prosecutor withdraw the charge on the basis of non-disclosure, but someone has to be there to request that ...

Be careful on the New York State Thruway (I-90) if you're using it. There are frequent weekend blitzes by State Troopers, when they show almost Zero Tolerance. If I remember correctly, the speed limit on the Thruway is 65 mph (about 105 km/h). When you're driving eastbound from Buffalo to Rochester, watch for police with "customers" on the other ...

There's a Saskatchewan case from 2012, R v McNally (https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skpc/doc/2012/2012skpc58/2012skpc58.html) in which the driver had a "glowing screen" on the passenger seat. The officer charged him under the Traffic Safety Act. At trial, the judge ruled that the driver was paying more attention to the screen than to his driving. I ...

1. Ultimately, you're responsible for ensuring your matter is dealt with appropriately. If you truly believe your paralegal was negligent, you can complain to the Law Society of Upper Canada, which regulates lawyers and paralegals. The LSUC may decide to investigate.
2. If you admit to the speed, you can't possibly win. An admission of guilt will ...

It sounds like the officer reduced the speeding to about 15 over (at which speed there are no demerit points). Double check the ticket to see what the reduced speed is.

Request a trial so you can see the officer's notes. If his notes are thorough, you won't win. In fact, as you're probably aware, the speeding charge will be amended to 131 and you ...

I missed the part about the swerve to the right.

I can't see this charge ever succeeding, especially when disclosure shows it was a bright day with good visibility.

EphOph wrote:In the city I live in, there are only two such intersections. And they have posted a "No left turns on red" sign at both.

Party poopers!

On the surface, based on your description, it sounds like you actually did the right thing. Most people don't use on ramps and acceleration lanes correctly. If I had a dollar for every person who switched into a driving lane right at the end of the on ramp at 70 or 80 km/h, I'd be a rich man. Of course, none of us was there to see exactly what ...

After driving for over 3 decades, learned something new. I had no idea it is legal to make a left turn at a red light when turning from a one way street onto a one way street.

Thank you for sharing. That was relatively new when I started driving at the end of 1979. My in-class instructor made sure we knew about it. I believe the Driver's Handbook ...

The JP's wording made it clear that even if the driver had pulled far enough onto the driveway to have been deemed off the highway, but had only done so momentarily, it would still have been considered a U-turn. If I'd been in that situation, I probably would have killed the engine, grabbed something from my car and gone to the front door as if I ...

If the officer does not show up, the Prosecutor will withdraw the charge.

No, it would not be legal to proceed. If there's a pedestrian crossing present, I would suggest simply dismounting and activating the crossing button. Another legal option would be to make a right turn at the light, proceed a safe distance, then make a u-turn and another right turn back at the intersection. Provided, of course, the U-turn can be ...

whaddyaknow wrote:I wonder if the outcome would have been different if the fellow wasn't a lawyer.

I'm sure it would have been. The average citizen probably wouldn't have had any clue about the extent of his or her language rights and probably wouldn't have the resources to do the research, cite the right cases, say the right things, etc.

The Supreme Court ruled in the case Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights, 1985 that Manitoba was constitutionally required to draft its legislation and provide access to the courts in both English and French as section 23 of the Manitoba Act of 1870, the act that brought Manitoba into confederation, had guaranteed French language rights in the ...

I'm with Stanton. Again, the guy speaks perfect English, so I think he kills his own argument there. I'd be interested in hearing the Crown's explanation. I don't see myself trying this, even though I can easily play the "I don't speak English" game.

I'm with Stanton. Again, the guy speaks perfect English, so I think he kills his own argument there. I'd be interested in hearing the Crown's explanation. I don't see myself trying this, even though I can easily play the "I don't speak English" game.

If there's no other vehicle involved, rendering (b) irrelevant, does that not then make the mistake a fatal error? If there's no need to yield, a driver can't be charged with failure to yield.

Some of you may have heard the story of a Francophone Manitoba lawyer who had a speeding ticket thrown out because the police officer was unable to communicate with him in French. Here's the story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/francophone-speeding-ticket-fight-1.4249924

I wonder if the same thing could happen in Ontario, particularly in ...

Should not Eclipse2017's ticket then have referred simply to 136(1)? If the officer specifically cites clause (b), does that not suggest that clause (a) was complied with, namely that he did come to a complete stop (clause (a)) but failed to yield right of way (clause (b))? If that's the case, the charge should have been fail to yield right of way ...

The system is nothing but a money grab.

That's only if she does nothing. If she requests a trial, there are no court costs unless she's ultimately convicted (including a guilty plea). My understanding is that Toronto now adds court costs to parking tickets; that never used to be the case.