Ontario Highway Traffic Act

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" !!