Search found 888 matches

I wish everyone a peaceful life. Absolutely no word of a lie. You need to get that massive chip off your shoulder. We disagree but what's wrong with that. I don't know you, you don't know me. Why would I not wish you a happy life?

The JP allowed you to read it because citizen's defending themselves are given a large amount of latitude due to lack of legal training. It would not have been considered by the JP because you did not have copies to submit as required. The prosecutor probably didn't stop you because why should he ? He can let you rant on in the full knowledge that ...

Actually you didn't win your case because of that. The appeal never went ahead when Crown decided not to proceed. Both the trial judge and the pre-appeal judge thought there was a case against you. There can be many reasons why Crown decides not to go ahead with a case but your assertions that a judge said that the officer's actions were relevant ...

Exactly this. What the officer was doing is completely irrelevant to the trial of the accused. If you feel the officer's behaviour was wrong then make a complaint through the OIPRD but the JP is only interested in what the driver was doing. The line of questioning as suggested will be shut down immediately.

You are assuming she was surprised when she saw your seatbelt. I read it as a sarcastic "Oh NOW you're wearing your seatbelt". Believe it or not, lots of people aren't wearing a seatbelt when seen but miraculously are wearing one when they get pulled over.

But I'm one of those 'tax collecting parasites' apparently..........

What's your question ?

The OP already has disclosure.

If your defence is that you had the phone mounted but took it out of the mount when you were pulled over and the officer thought your hand was a phone....I don't see a positive outcome for you.

ShrekTek wrote:Sorry just a little confused... Did the driver of Car A or the driver of Car B get charged with Careless Driving?

It seems to me that Car A was not at fault at all and should not have been charged with anything. Car A did not have to stop even though other vehicles were stopped, and Car B would be completely at fault.

What he said.

If you are on a curved road then the radar will display a lower speed than you are travelling. It's simple physics (math ?) And will be able to be explained by any officer under cross examination.

Exactly that. It's the prosecutor's job to provide evidence of guilt. Reading the charge is a part of the court process and therefore the job of the court.

Going 'just slightly under the speed limit ' is not an invitation to overtake.

Many times the evidence is not there, and a testimony will self incriminate you.

On what evidence or experience do you base 'Many times...". Occasionally would be a more accurate word. My scenario is far, far more prevalent based on my thousands of interactions and those of my colleagues.

I helped someone fight a fail to report ticket last ...

jsherk wrote:Many times the evidence is not there, and a testimony will self incriminate you.

On what evidence or experience do you base 'Many times...". Occasionally would be a more accurate word. My scenario is far, far more prevalent based on my thousands of interactions and those of my colleagues.

That is absolutely not true. Many times the evidence is there to charge but a regret shown by the offender results in a caution and a closed case.

And you then give them no option but to lay a charge when their intention might have been to give a warning. It's like going all in at poker, you take all other plays off the table.

This is going to a very very expensive 'mistake' for him. Yes, the tow and storage fees are going to be in the region of $1000, then the fine and finally he will be lucky to find insurance and if he does it is going to be astronomical.

But he is not going to jail. There is no need to be scared but I don't think he's going to be driving for quite ...

If it happened as you say then I do not see a Careless charge being successful. This might be one of the times when it would be beneficial to take the stand as you don't believe you were driving carelessly as opposed to the norm of not taking the stand because you did but want to see if you can cast doubt on the crown's case.

I would definately ...

It won't affect you getting a licence though.

You did admit to using the phone which will berate much of these lines of questioning. Remember that unless you take the stand you cannot enter any evidence while questioning.

What are the arguments ?

Good luck. Let us know how it goes.

The charge isn't that your friend didn't have insurance (that's a big ticket !). The charge is that he didn't produce it when asked, which he didn't. The charge is a slam dunk for the Crown.

In your position, I would wholeheartedly inform the court I was completely sure that I came to an adequate stop, without any hesitation at all.



If that were true. Otherwise you are taking yourself into the criminal realm of perjury. Imagine blowing a stop sign completely, testifying that you did stop, subsequently a video surfaces that shows ...

Careless is a huge hit. Follow too close is a minor ticket. If offered it, I'd bite their hand off.

The flip side of dash cams is that they also show if someone did, in fact, break the law. Note that the OP in the first post did not claim that he did stop but was basing the defence on whether he could cast doubt on the officers testimony. This is normal as it is very rare (and shocking when it dies happen) that an officer will fabricate evidence.

Common tactic ? Your post is the first time I've heard of anything like this.

I don't see an issue. Traffic matters are more focused on what happens as opposed to when. You can always explain things like this in testimony.

Good attitude. Certainly this is a huge pain for you but imagine having a seizure while driving and causing something catastrophic. Well done to you for taking it in your stride.

Does anyone have the definition of approved format ?