Ontario Highway Traffic Act

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.