Search found 888 matches

Does the note say they didn't have any or did it say they didn't have anything ready to share with you. The RCMP wouldn't give you anything directly, it would come from the Crown.

I would take the early resolution option. The more work you give a Crown the less likely they are to cut you a break. To be honest I think it is very unlikely they will amend the charge but if you go to trial and put the system through the bother of preparing disclosure then there is zero chance. Of course you might get lucky and have the officer ...

I don't see any of your planned defences having any chance of success.

The ticket will affect your insurance although, as a first one, the effect will be very minimal or perhaps even though registered against you, no monetary effect at all.

You would be very fortunate to have the crown change this to a bylaw infraction. Plus some bylaw tickets ...

Plus he also said the point of impact was 3 (or 4) metres north of the South curb so close to the centre line.

Just a quick one - the report is not saying that there were 2 lanes in each direction with different speed limits. R1 is the road you were both on and has 2 lanes, one in each direction with a 30km limit for both. R2 is the road that intersects your road. It also has 2 lanes and the speed limit is 50.

They are marked on the diagram R1 and R2

ahh ok cool,
I'm planning on being a good boy anyway......... txs again appreciate it

Good plan........doing something to get your licence seized out of your home area becomes very expensive. I pulled over an American who was traveling far in excess of the speed limit. I told him his car was being impounded for 7 days to which he said he needed ...

There should be an option on the back of the ticket.

Don't worry about the amount of damage. I think you're confusing insurance liability to the ticket. You are at fault for the collision as will be cars 2 and 3 in the eyes of the fault determination in the insurance act.

The ticket is a different issue and you should be able to negotiate it to a fall to turn out to avoid a collision which is a ...

You can't fight this ticket as you either had a licence or you didn't. What you can do is meet with the prosecutor and show him or her that you immediately got one and try and convince them it was an oversight and hope they take pity on you and withdraw the ticket.

8. (1) If a person who is a fully licensed driver in Ontario in one or more licence classes or a person who is not a resident of Ontario has 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 or 14 accumulated demerit points, the Registrar may require the person to attend an interview before a Ministry official and to provide information or other evidence to show cause why his or ...

Good post.

Whereas the judge will not. Scattergun approaches by self representing defendants just piss them off and you might see the effect on sentence. It won't be much but you have to ask yourself why the professional lawyers don't use the same tactic if it is so successful.

Did you ever follow up on getting disclosure from your previous post in March ?

The evidence shows that it reduces injury collisions. Just because you repeat the mantra enough that speeding doesn't hurt anyone doesn't make it true. A collision at 60 kms/hr compared to a collision at 30 kms/hr is safer for everyone concerned.

The speed cameras in the UK absolutely have slowed the traffic down which is exactly the result ...

You can't just pick and choose sentences from an article. The article is talking about 21 specific sites across the WHOLE of the UK.

The article summarises as follows:

"Merseyside Road Safety Camera Partnership said that, of the nine camera sites identified in the RAC report as being of 'concern, two were in Liverpool, four in the Wirral, and ...

From the BBC:

"They show that at the 212 fixed camera sites across the wider Thames Valley region - which also includes Buckinghamshire and Berkshire - there was a 38% drop in vehicle collisions.
This is when you compare the three years before each camera was put in place with the most recent three years."

sorry not true, 50+ brit here, and that's simply not true
since the introduction of speed cameras, driving is more dangerous,
people speed UP to the camera then slam on there anchors.

speed limits on some spots have "suddenly" changed and cameras put up

it's a taxation for the government, stats have shown, little to no improvement in road safety ...

On what grounds ? I don't see anything that would be relevant.

That's what happens here in the UK. There are cameras everywhere but there are warning signs right before them so if you are inattentive enough not to slow down then that's your fault.

The UK used to be a racetrack but now, with cameras everywhere people generally drive pretty close to the limits

Do you have more details ? This sounds a bit like an urban legend to me.

I would suggest that this section is designed to cover the person who gets insurance, gets the slip, then cancelled the insurance and later uses the slip to appear as if he still had insurance cover.

This is assuming you don't put a value on your time. To go to trial will normally put you at the end of the day's matters.

I think you're being generous saying your case is borderline at best !

You won't get it on time. 54 to 49 is one of those times you really need to be sure you'll win before electing to go to trial. BIG difference for your insurance.

It seems as if less matters are taking long enough for a Charter challenge......I don't have any facts to support that but it seems that way. A bot like officers not turning up for trials; almost a thing of the past.

You're on the right track but your first one has taken away your ability at trial to say that you did stop (if you did because you don't want to perjury yourself)

Your second one will get you a ticket EVERY time......and possibly any others that might normally have been overlooked.

No, obstruction is criminal and different. You do not have to self-incriminate yourself. The debate is always that by refusing to answer anything other than to identify yourself and provide any required details you will almost certainly be issued a ticket where one exists whereas being contrite can get you away with a warning.

Two strategies, both ...

That's a tough one. I've driven in unfamiliar areas before and it is natural to 'when in Rome, do what the Romans do'. Unfortunately for you that doesn't work as a defence so you'll need to find something in the disclosure that actually gives you an out.

I highly doubt it. If the codes were meant to be read by the drivers then the key would be provided.

Sadly this is true. I was once acting as Crown in a Criminal Show Cause hearing regarding a sexual assault charge where the offender was accused of grabbing the breasts of the victim. The JP said "I don't understand this charge. If there is no penetration then how is it sexual assault" !!