Search found 358 matches

Go to court with several copies of your e-mails, logs of your phone calls, etc. When you arrive, the Prosecutor will ask you what you want to do. Tell him or her that you requested disclosure eight months ago and have followed up diligently. The Prosecutor may have copies of your e-mails to verify; if not, give him or her one of the copies.

If the ...

You have the right to tell your story and to cross-examine both officers. Handheld tickets are difficult to beat, but if Officer 1 can't describe your cellphone and you can get him to acknowledge that you may have been trying to close a Tic Tac box, you could have a chance.

Perhaps you could post the disclosure here (just make sure you black out any personal information). One or more people could advise you as to whether you may be able to do better.

Pardon the pun, but Mrs. Bobajob should rest easily. If she's managing her apnea with a CPAP machine (preferably) or other form of treatment/therapy as advised by her doctor, she is still eligible for a licence. She would have to have severe apnea to be denied a licence.

I have sleep apnea and use a CPAP machine. It used to be a lot worse (even ...

You can still receive the set fine of $615 if you go through the disclosure process and decide to plead guilty in court or at any time before that. It's only if you plead not guilty, have a trial and are subsequently convicted that the set fine is no longer available.

No. The sign was correct at the time of the alleged offence. The fact that the by-law was changed subsequently does not affect the validity of the charge.

You may have difficulty having the HTA charge changed to TMC, as municipal by-laws are relied upon to set the prohibited days/hours that are referenced in s. 182 of the HTA.

Read R. v. Schlesinger: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2 ... cj266.html

Radar( Laser) only needs to be tested before shift and at end of shift not after each stop.
The text of the decision says before and after enforcement. That's typically interpreted to mean the beginning and end of the officer's shift. I've also seen cases where an officer who has worked a long shift has testified as to having tested the unit ...

First, let's recognize that police officers are human and make mistakes. It may be better to proceed with the attitude and mindset that the officer may have been mistaken. If you go into the process "hot" and accusing the officer of lying, no prosecutor is going to want to give you the time of day.

There's nothing wrong with requesting early ...

The relevant case for this question is R. v. Schlesinger. That case confirmed that an officer must test the radar both before and after and enforcement stop and that an officer must have a notation of the time he or she tested the radar.

You can read the text of the decision here: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2007/2007oncj266/2007oncj266 ...

Both offences are considered major offences for insurance purposes. Either can cause your insurance premiums to double. If you're convicted of both, you'll find it extremely difficult to find insurance (if you're very lucky, a company in what's called the facility market or sector; these companies insure the riskiest drivers, but charge SKY-HIGH ...

I'm sure the intention of the sign is as Bend has suggested, but I can see how it could easily be confusing. It would probably be better if the text were:
8:30 AM - 4:30 PM
MON - FRI
SEPT - JUNE

I also think the Highway 7 HOV lane would fall under either a York Region or City of Markham by-law.

I believe volunteer response services are permitted to use intermittent green lights. I can look up the reference if needed.

If you were holding or looking down at the paper, the officer could still ticket you for distracted driving. That may be an option. Perhaps someone who's more familiar with the ramifications of Distracted could chime in as to whether it's a better option.

Ask him to confirm the direction of travel. If the sun was rising or setting, you could ask him whether he was looking towards it or away from it. Ask what the most recent major cross street was and what the next one would be. Ask on which side a major landmark was.

That's surprising, since parking tickets are linked to the vehicle, not the driver. Then again, you're in Toronto, where almost anything is possible.

Parking tickets or traffic tickets?

It won't be linked to your driver's licence; it will be linked to your car's licence plate.

Red light camera tickets are almost impossible to beat. If you request a trial, you may find a sympathetic prosecutor who's willing to reduce the fine in return for a guilty plea.

It sounds like he charged you under subsection (12), interfering with traffic. If you can show that you had pulled sufficiently off the road that you weren't interfering, you could have a case.

I have no idea why he'd have asked your daughter for her name and address. It was also interesting that he'd have questioned the staff at Tim's as to how ...

Wakili01 wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:13 pm Sorry...Correction: "I'm going to try and do my best".

Actually, the first version was correct. Sorry, that's the teacher and picky grammar person in me.

You said both your wife and your daughter had their seatbelts under their arms. A seatbelt must be worn over the arm and shoulder. You can still request a trial and see the disclosure, but keep in mind you've admitted they were both wearing them incorrectly.

In theory, checking a phone is no different from eating a donut or drinking a coffee or from a water bottle. They're all distracting. The display in my car shows me who's calling, so I don't have to peek at my phone, but it's often tempting to do so. In practice, the difference is that the specific prohibition on using a device is written into the ...

The person with whom you meet at early resolution may be in a good mood and may accept your story that you simply pushed one button on a mounted phone. Do your homework and bring at least subsection 14 (1) of the Regulation with you. Tell the prosecutor that that's exactly what you did and no more. The prosecutor probably won't have the officer's ...

You very well could have an argument pursuant to subsection 14 (1) of O. Reg. 366/09 (that's the Regulation dealing with hand-held device exemptions; s. 14 (1) refers to what you said in terms of being able to push a button if the device is securely mounted). That said, the officer/Prosecutor could amend the charge to Green light - fail to proceed ...

You're right. Because it's a parking ticket, you won't get disclosure. But you can explain the situation and see what the reviewer says. If you're not happy, you can request a second review.

I assume by now you've requested a trial. As soon as you have the trial date, request disclosure.

If you haven't yet requested your trial, bring a letter from your father explaining the situation, including the fact that the space in which you parked was the closest one available. The person at the ticket office may be able to cancel the ticket.

Aside from everything else that's been discussed, you keep referring to York Region. You were in the City of Toronto. "York" here refers to the former City of York, which is now part of Toronto. The courthouse is in the York Civic Centre, an administrative building for the City of Toronto, formerly City Hall for the City of York. The officer who ...