Search found 358 matches

I probably oversimplified that. But, you're right, there's no use flogging a dead horse.

At this point, I'll just wait for my trial date to arrive so I can start the disclosure process.

I think you hit the nail on the head Zatota with your last sentence. Your issue is with the actions of the officer and if so then it is your right to make a complaint about him. But the JP won't care and will shut you down very very quickly which is only going to make you pissed off with life. I've seen it so many times. The court is only ...

argyll wrote:In regards to number 4, doesn't your calculations show you were travelling at 50-60 km/hr so you were speeding?

14 metres per second is 50.4 kilometres per hour. The four tenths could easily be attributed to rounding. Even if I were the pickiest JP in the world, I would allow a defendant to call that 50.

Let me clarify one thing, if I haven't already done so. I have no problem with an officer speeding while he or she is fulfilling his or her duties (catching up to and pulling over a speeding driver, driving on the wrong side of the road or running red lights, for example). I'm all in favour of that. If this officer had genuinely been pursuing a ...

You are really reaching. You are asking your judge to overhaul the entire system. That's one of the reasons I reached out to you in the first place. If I take it correctly, you're essentially saying that courts will allow police officers to speed routinely, even when there's no need to do so. Police tell drivers that speeding is dangerous, yet ...

On a side note, while your questions about the Officer and his/her rate of speed are an interesting discussion. I wouldn't get too focused on them as they have no impact on your case.
So you're saying an officer can speed without fear of repercussion?
No, I think what he is saying is that whether or not the officer was speeding, has no bearing ...

How do you get that from what OTD Legal said ???

He identified you from your driver's licence. He believes he saw a motor vehicle commit an offence, pulled that vehicle over and identified the driver with a valid Ontario DL. I get that from the comment that his speeding will have no bearing on my ticket. If his speeding is legal, it won't have ...

On a side note, while your questions about the Officer and his/her rate of speed are an interesting discussion. I wouldn't get too focused on them as they have no impact on your case.

So you're saying an officer can speed without fear of repercussion? I've read some blogs and official or semi-official police postings. Unfortunately, none of them ...

Thanks for that, screeech. That's a HUGE relief!

argyll, I know you're a former officer. Is driving along the 407, ostensibly looking for potential speeders, considered "lawful performance of a police officer's duty"? I get that responding to a call, etc., is, regardless of whether the lights are on, but, to me, just out and fishing would be ...

I certainly don't need eight points!!! I'm pissed that he nailed me on the Follow too Closely. It was really only momentary that I was within two seconds of him and it was right after he braked. Frankly, that almost reeks of entrapment (even though I know that's not a defence in Ontario).

On the upside, I'm 99.6% sure we were in Brampton when he ...

Excellent idea about the notepad! Tomorrow, I'll try to remember where he pulled me over. I'll use my GPS to help if necessary.

That stinks that officers can speed "just because." I once reported one for turning on his lights when he didn't want to wait at a red light (he turned them off as soon as he'd gone through), and I once saw one plead ...

Sadly, the fact that the prosecutor didn't sign it is irrelevant. The clerk has certified that he or she gave a copy personally to the prosecutor. You would have to prove otherwise.

Now that you have your trial date, you should request disclosure. Courts may have different procedures. You should contact the court to find out how to submit your ...

Will you be using the Thruway between Buffalo and Rochester? If so, that's one of the most heavily patrolled sections. State Troopers do not give much leeway there. I've heard they'll pull drivers over at only 75 mph (120 km/h). You should probably stick to what the people with New York plates are doing. Also, if you see a lot of State Troopers ...

I'm writing for myself this time.

This morning, I was on the WB 407 on my way to school. For about 15 km, I was following an OPP SUV in the left lane. The officer was generally driving between 120 and 125, and I made sure to keep a safe distance. Before I go any further, yes, I know I was speeding, and I know that any testimony I may give if I ...

Be particularly careful on the New York State Thruway if you will be using it. State Troopers have been stepping up enforcement in recent months. My wife was stopped on the Thruway outside Buffalo last year. We still get e-mails from the law firm we hired, and they keep warning of extra enforcement.

Ontario does have reciprocity with New York, so ...

Regardless of anything else that happens...

If your trial does, indeed, wind up being under twenty minutes (and I highly suspect that will be the case), you should consider filing a complaint against the prosecutor with the prosecutor's office. She has the experience to know how long a trial will likely take. It seems she wanted the adjournment ...

From what I've heard, the Ministry official will chastise you for your record (especially since, if I read your original post correctly, you had five points expire but managed to replace them with five new points). He or she may also ask you to justify why you should be allowed to keep your licence.

As long as he has his Bermudian licence and has not spent more than three months (on a cumulative basis, not just per visit), he meets the requirements of Section 32 (see subclause 34 (1) (b) (ii)).

Wouldn't that be a treat!!! I'll keep that in mind the next time I'm in Ottawa. It's a good thing I don't drink or text and drive.

He's smart enough not to say anything until he gets his disclosure and shows up in court.

It's an 80 for at least a couple of kilometres and doesn't become a 70 until about 500 metres past where the officer stopped him. He's printed a Google Maps layout of the area and has indicated the locations of all speed limit signs; he also has photos of ...

Hi Gang. I'm back, but I'm asking for a friend this time.

A friend received a ticket the other day for driving 87 km/h in a 70 km/h zone. The problem is it's a posted 80 zone (I've verified this fact with him). Is an incorrectly identified speed limit a fatal error? There isn't a police officer in the province who would stop a driver who's only 7 ...

Damn! There goes my reputation for accuracy.

The officer's typed notes say there is no video evidence. You may want to get clarification IN WRITING from the disclosure clerk that nothing is available, then check with the officer and prosecutor again.

As for whether your seat belt was on, it will, unfortunately, be your word against the officer's. It is perfectly legal to remove a seatbelt ...

Expired is expired, not invalid.

From what I've seen, if your friend shows up with the current slip that shows it was valid the date the officer wrote the ticket, the prosecutor will inform the JP he/she is satisfied your friend was carrying proper insurance and will withdraw the charge. Yes, it's a pain in the butt to have to deal with, but ...

I seem to remember reading somewhere (either HTA or Police Services Act) that OPP has exclusive jurisdiction on the 400-Series highways. Did I read that incorrectly or has that been repealed? I can't find the reference.

It may be buried somewhere in either the rules of procedure or LSUC requirements. While a JP and prosecutor may be familiar with commonly cited cases, one should never assume that. Plus, someone could be referring to a paragraph or making an interpretation that hasn't been previously used.

Unless there's a fatal error on the ticket, don't expect the crown to withdraw the charge at an early resolution meeting.

Of course it's optional. If it were mandatory, prosecutors would have to disclose calibration records. Imagine that...they'd actually have to do some work!

Sounds like a load of malarkey to me.

Subsection 144 (10) deals with traffic control signals. Section 133 defines that term as meaning three or more lights with red, amber, green, etc., etc., etc. It should be easy to show that the intersection only has signs and not traffic lights. Take some photos now before that changes.