Search found 888 matches

In regards to number 4, doesn't your calculations show you were travelling at 50-60 km/hr so you were speeding?

Even jsherk is wavering from his usual Fight Hard, Fight Everything, Fight Until the Justice Cries stance

Bobajob. Read the above. This is about avoiding the suspension on points.

Thank your lucky stars, pay it and slow down.

I would suspect that this complaint was made in the heat of the road-rage moment and now the witness doesn't want to be involved, using illness as an excuse. It may just go away at the next appearance.....

....but plan for the worst. Your paralegal needs to have some good cross skills.

Illness will always get an adjournment. If they just failed to attend then that is another matter entirely.

My experience of JPs is different than above. Maybe I've just been fortunate but I have found JPs to be very non-biased, sometimes even verging on the side of the defendant. I would have thought that it would be possible to mount a credible ...

So you're using the argument that he was doing it so I should be able to as well. You are very much falling into the trap of another post on another thread which said examine why you are going to court. It sounds to me like you are expecting to be found guilty but just want your voice to be heard. Sadly it won't be - you will be shut down by the ...

You are really reaching. You are asking your judge to overhaul the entire system.

On a side note, while your questions about the Officer and his/her rate of speed are an interesting discussion. I wouldn't get too focused on them as they have no impact on your case.

So you're saying an officer can speed without fear of repercussion? .

How do you get that from what OTD Legal said ???

He identified you from your driver's ...

You are incorrect. You could be stopped every time you take the car on the road. Imagine if you were right and you were awaiting trial for having no insurance and so you could drive with no insurance for the best part of a year. That makes no sense.

Are you planning on testifying?

The problem is not the date that the notes were written but the fact that your request under the Privacy Act did not get any results. There would have been a computer record of the incident created right when it happened but that was not forthcoming either. That shows that nothing came up. You might have an argument to be made if you had got the ...

Not completely true. There are other mandatory reporting requirements in respect of a collision other than just providing your name.

Ottawa. I requested the disclosure from prosecutor as soon as I received the court date but they didn't give me the officers note more than 3 month later. Also, officers not doesn't have a date written. I asked officer in the court specifically that if the note belongs to the RCMP or you and he said:RCMP. But RCMP letter shows they didn't have it ...

Just to be clear - this was in Ontario, right? It isn't often that the RCMP write traffic tickets in Ontario.

It isn't just notes that the letter above says they didn't have, it says they have nothing. This suggests that either they made an error or you made an error somewhere in your request perhaps to whom you sent it. This doesn't show that ...

Without seeing what request you made and what the response was it's difficult to comment. ATI is a bit of a minefield.

Something isn't right. There's no way you would have a FOI response 20 days after the incident. They take along time. Could it have been some other response?

That's a tough one. I generally assumed that a no U-turn applied to the intersection where it was posted and that the general rules of U-turns applied elsewhere.

"U-turns prohibited

143. No driver or operator of a vehicle upon a highway shall turn the vehicle so as to proceed in the opposite direction when,

(a) upon a curve where traffic ...

Exactly. The bus drivers are generally experienced and able to make good judgements. They often delay the stop sign being deployed just to let people pass.

So you only like those responses with which you agree and will hurl insults at those who dare to offer a different opinion ?!

You CAN be fined more if you go to trial and are found guilty. It happens all the time. The set fine is for those who choose to pay the ticket, if you choose to go to court then the judge can impose anything within the ...

HTA 128(13) says:
Fire department vehicles and police vehicles
128(13) The speed limits prescribed under this section or any regulation or by-law passed under this section do not apply to,
(b) a police department vehicle being used in the lawful performance of a police officers duties;

Seems to me that it says an officer, while on duty, is ...

Officers are definitely not allowed to speed all they want while on duty. But there are times when they may exceed the speed limit both with and without emergency lights activated.

It is not the judge's job to solicit objections. If you had had an objection you could have raised it. The fact that you didn't will make it almost impossible to raise as an issue at appeal. The fact that some judges may ask if counsel have any objection does not make it a requirement.

Give them a call a see

Plus how long ago was this? The firefighters will have been on many calls since then.

I agree. Insurance rates are nothing to do with the police.

Private parking enforcement is a mess and should be clearly regulated. In my opinion agencies should be approved by the province to carry out enforcement and then issue Provincial parking tickets which would be dealt with in the proper manner.

The diagram seems to show the car directly in the way of the fire truck.

I'd also check the definition or parking. If you're in the vehicle are you parked?

Just your time and money to file. You need to prove that the trial judge made a mistake in law. Not that he interpreted the evidence in a way you didn't like. From what you have told us you are wasting your time.