Search found 358 matches

You're absolutely right. There isn't even a clause 154.1 (a). There's a 154.1 (1) (a), but no 154.1 (a). You should have been charged under s. 154.

I would ignore the ticket. A JP will look at the certificate of offence to see if it is "complete and regular on its face." He or she should notice that the incorrect section has been shown and should ...

What does the video show?

Shouldn't the trial be in Peel Region (I believe it would be the Brampton court), not Newmarket? Isn't the jurisdiction based on where the alleged offence allegedly occurred, not the police service that made the stop?

The doubling of speeding fines in work zones only applies when workers are present. If there was no one actually there, the officer's words were meaningless.

Zero likelihood of a summons unless there were some way to identify you as the driver. If any action is taken, it would be a ticket to the registered owner.

1. I received 3 tickets 2 years ago: one for speeding (I went 16 over in a school zone not knowing it was a school zone), one for an expired ownership (I was driving my dad's car) and one for forgetting my insurance card at home. However I made a deal with the prosecutor and only had to pay the fine for not having my insurance card on me. My ...

Mens rea does not matter for provincial offences. This is not a criminal matter. How far into the intersection were you? If you were just a little across the line and, say, blocking part of the pedestrian crossing area, many police officers wouldn't bother you. Unfortunately, the drivers behind you weren't polite enough to give you room to back up ...

All's well that ends well.

Is it sufficient for the officer to say he tested the device before and after the stop? Is he not required to show his log book entries or anything similar that would show the times of such tests (to confirm they were, indeed, before and after the stop)?

You have to be able to conduct yourself in French at the trial. There's a little leeway if you don't know some legal terms, but your questions and testimony (if you choose to testify) must be in French. The JP and Clerk will speak to you in French.

Thanks.

Let's just say if I were actually in that position, I'd probably be so terrified, I'd have trouble taking my foot off the gas afterwards. But one could easily accelerate quickly from, say, 50 or 60 to, say, 80 or 90. I'd also want to make darn sure I was clear of the intersection.

So what if, for example, one were driving through an intersection (say, travelling north) and happened to see someone flying westbound on the cross street? The only way to avoid being T-boned and, likely, killed is to put the hammer down and get through the intersection. Now what?

(I used that example based on two stories I've heard of fatal ...

Speeding is what they call an absolute liability offense. That means you were either speeding or you weren't. There's no in between. What the other poster was trying to tell you was you'll just be admitting your own guilt and the trial will be over before it even starts. Which HTA offences are strict liability and which are absolute liability? I ...

It sounds like you were off to a really good start. How could the officer have seen your lips moving if it was after midnight and your screen was dark? (I imagine you were going to ask him that within the next few questions)

The JP would not have adjourned based solely on how you were doing. JPs don't "protect" officers and try to keep them from ...

Thanks for the update. I also found the screening officers quite pleasant. They didn't have photos in my cases, but both had a "slide show" on a small digital frame of what does and does not constitute legal parking.

As always, request a trial. When you show up, the prosecutor will probably offer you a reduced fine in exchange for a guilty plea. Take the offer. You're not going to beat a red light camera offence. I've tried to fight two of them (one was my daughter's, one was a friend's). I thought I had a pretty decent case of doubt, but lost both times.

If you can testify that you were driving under the limit because of the rain (showing that you're driving responsibly under the circumstances), that you knew stopping would be more difficult than on a dry road and that you were too close to the intersection to have stopped even if the road had been dry, especially if your father can provide the ...

I don't. Sorry. Having the tickets reduced from thirty-something dollars to something in the teens or about twenty was good enough for me. It would have cost much more in terms of time to push for more.

I've dealt with a couple of parking tickets in Markham. The upside to this system is that the meeting with the review with the screening officer comes up much more quickly than waiting for a trial. The downside is screening officers are not likely to cancel a ticket unless there's an obvious error. The screening officer is also far less likely to ...

There's no way the JP could have found you guilty of the offence with which you were charged. It refers to a situation that's completely different from the one covered by Section 154.1. Even if you say you were driving in the lane, you did not violate s. 154.1 and cannot be found guilty of violating it. Unless the prosecutor amended the charge, you ...

It was just after midnight - no standing zone only in effect Mon-Fri 7:30 AM to 9:30 AM (can you please confirm through the pic?) Your picture shows two signs: No Stopping 7:30 to 9:30 am Monday to Friday and No Parking (all times). Those signs mean that a driver cannot stop at all during weekday morning rush hour, but cannot park at any time ...

Nanuk wrote:I am skeptical of photo radars effectiveness , yes I know they publish statistics however I still question the accuracy of those . I am not impartial but I would rather see the money spent for photo radar put into municipal police service traffic enforcement, hire an extra officer just for traffic !

Well said!

I have seen prosecutors in the GTA routinely drop Failure to Surrender Insurance Card charges when the defendant brings the correct card to the court. But that's no guarantee that all prosecutors in all courts would do so. I remember the good old days when we could bring the card to a police station and have the charge withdrawn.

The 3+ HOV lane that exists on the bridge is municipal and is covered by an Ottawa by-law. The provisions of the HTA do not apply. Had you been charged under the NCCTPR, you'd have been guilty. The officer charged you with the wrong offence.

If you're in court within six months of the alleged offence date, the officer (not the prosecutor) could ...

I still think what I suggested will work. Signs may have been posted, but I'm guessing from what you've said that (a) there were no "HOV lane ahead" type signs on the Quebec side and (b) the signage did not conform to the Regulation (I believe someone who's in a similar situation said the lane is 3+). The officer clearly charged you under the wrong ...

If I were in your position, I'd certainly plead not guilty to both and get my disclosure before making any decisions. The blocked sign on the right won't help you, as there is a clearly visible sign on the left. Not only that, but a sign that's blocked by a moving obstruction (e.g., a truck) is not thought of as blocked. I know that stinks, but it ...

The second circled sign is clearly visible. It will be difficult to say you didn't see a No Left Turn Sign. HOWEVER...why didn't the officer pull over the person who turned ahead of you? Did the officer feel he had turned right? The driver does appear to go past the intersection, pull a U-turn and turn more-or-less right. It would be a tough sell ...

Thanks, jsherk.

If the officer tries to talk about pacing, maintaining constant visual contact, etc., I'll go after him on that. Did he look only in his rearview mirror and never ahead? It was morning rush hour; I was hardly the only person driving a car of my description. Between glances in the rearview, cars could easily have changed positions ...

Unfortunately, you're assuming that the court will act rationally and reasonably. There are people here with considerably more experience than I have, but even I've seen some eyebrow-raising decisions.

Your post is quite timely, though. When I was pulled over for speeding last November, the officer was in front of me the whole way. Unless he used ...