Ontario Highway Traffic Act

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.