Search found 888 matches

perryub wrote: I believe in the mantra of, "admit nothing, deny everything, make counteraccuations".

And I think we just found out why you got a 10 over ticket.

Perhaps she thought she was going to get an easy settlement from you. Who knows. If that was the case then well done for standing up to the allegation.

Yes because everyone should be able to go any speed they want and it's only an issue when they hit someone. Argue the unnecessary enforcement in areas where limits are artificially low but not the fact that making people drive at a limited speed doesn't save people.

But listen to jsherk - you will be wasting your time and money if you appeal just because you don't agree with the judge's decision. There has to be an error in law for an appeal to be successful.

Argyll, is there any consequence for writing frivolous tickets like this? I spent hours reviewing my case, agonizing over and preparing evidence, travelling to court, finding accommodations overnight to make the morning trial, etc. and the cop just drops the charge at the last minute. It doesn't seem fair.

Not that I am aware of. Any ...

I agree that if the case was not going to be argued then they should not have had you attend and waste your time.

You'll have to get disclosure first to see what the evidence is upon which the charge is made out.

Sadly yes, which is a travesty. But the insurance companies can pretty much do what they want. To say a history of speeding is the same risk as a history of not having a piece of paper with you is just nonsense.

I've never seen a dropped charge being introduced in court when a driver was fighting an issued charge. I think a JP would have some pretty strong opinions on that !

Failure to provide permit on demand is pretty much impossible to defend. If you didn't produce the document on demand the offence is made out.

I would say the final word is with the JP.

It's possible but it's time consuming. Plus that doesn't show if a driver is scrolling through music on the phone like the driver in the UK who was doing exactly that an ploughed into and killed a mother and daughter.

I would suspect that it's because if they didn't make a blanket ban in holding it then everyone would have an excuse about passing it to someone or other reason why it was in their hand.

I hear you, I can't go into details,but
I had a "meeting" with the police a few years back, they first didn't tell me they where the police, they rang me Friday afternoon and LEFT a fricckin voice mail on my cell.
They HAD known about this since the morning, (leaving it so I didnt have time to think)
They just came across as being "hi my name is ...

I would recommend never being anything other than 100% to insurance companies. You may get a better rate but, if you need them and it's a big claim, you can rest assured they are going to examine what you told them and not pay out if they find any discrepancies.

My insurer told me that they don't worry about 1 ticket, i.e. No surcharge. More than one then it goes up.

Same
(6) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if all of the following conditions are met:

1. The motor vehicle is off the roadway or is lawfully parked on the roadway.

2. The motor vehicle is not in motion.

3. The motor vehicle is not impeding traffic. 2009, c. 4, s. 2.

Note all of these conditions must be met. The offence is made out. Yes the ...

well in the city bylaw, the heavy truck defined "A commercial vehicle having a weight, when unloaded, of three (3) tonnes or more or, when loaded, of five (5) tonnes or more" so if I am loading as long as my truck is no more than 5t I am ok, correct me if I am wrong

A commercial vehicle having a weight,

when unloaded, of three (3) tonnes or ...

So therefore in excess of 3 tons which meets the criteria of the section.

ppstream1 wrote:To lolwut,

My truck's RGW is 8000kg, its a Hino 185

So your truck is an 8 ton truck, right ? Am I missing something ?

That's valid. Sorry I appear to have taken you off on a bit of a tangent. My original thought was that unless you take the stand the officer would likely say that you were honking to hurry the pedestrian in question. I guess you could bring some doubt in asking him how he knows that was the purpose and whether there was ANY other possible reason ...

It's always a good idea to visit the court on a day prior to your trial just so you can see how it proceeds.

I appreciate your response, argyll.

As I stated earlier, I honked my horn because there were two pedestrians that had just illegally crossed Albert Street, and seemed about to cross illegally across Columbia Street West. This is a neighbourhood very close to University of Waterloo and Wilfred Laurier University, and it was late on a Friday night ...

Alarm bell to be sounded
(5) Every motor vehicle, motor assisted bicycle and bicycle shall be equipped with an alarm bell, gong or horn, which shall be kept in good working order and sounded whenever it is reasonably necessary to notify pedestrians or others of its approach. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 75 (5).

The argument might be that if you were ...

Post of the year from our friendly bot !!

I see the video has been taken down.

The vehicle would presumably have been in the lane to the left of the OP and behind although it must have presumable been travelling even faster.

The notes also say that you cut off another vehicle when you changed lanes which would not, of course, show up on the dash cam.

Where I was we were expected to issue either a ticket or warning per shift.

Does the act specifically say that the check mark has to be in the box ?

Will your video editor testify that video makes things appear to be moving when they are actually stationary ?

I admire your tenacity but I fear the only person you will be inconveniencing is yourself - the Crown is being paid to be there.