Search found 888 matches

What would you suggest should happen ?

So this means things like the entire radar manual should be considered obviously relevant and should fall into prsoecutor disclsoure. It also means that speedometer accuracy is also obviously relevant (if the speedometer was used to either pace or test against radar).

And notice in p [133] that for intoxilyzers, they normally give logs ...

Ah, the law student thing. Every copper's comedy show when someone steps up and says "I'm a law student, you know" and then proceeds to tell us what we can and can't do !

Sadly Zatota is right. You'll have to deal with this one.

The tickets will be hard to fight. You admit to rolling the stop so can't take the stand to offer an opposing view to the officer's testimony and the plates clearly weren't registered to the car or they wouldn't have come up on the computer.

What's the owner of the car saying ? I hope he is at least offering to pay the ticket.

Why MUST the JP order the subpoena ?

One type of fraud is when people find a car matching their car. They then create plates with your registration but put it on their, identical car. This can resuot in tolls and photo infractions coming to you or even, as may be the case here, collision related claims.

150. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and,
(b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction

also applies so it doesn't HAVE to be a turn

Section 150 is also an OR section, not an AND section

Award for most concise and clear post goes to bend !

I'm not sure the MTO will buy the pre-1983 bit. That is more for a commercial moped that has documentation.

It's interesting though. Keep us posted but I do think you could get tickets until you get the paperwork sorted out through the MTO.

The stopping is not in question as per the ticket wording. It's all about who arrived at the intersection first. It would appear that you were due to the fact the front of their car hit the side of yours.

I can see a withdrawal of the charge because it will boil down to a he-said he-said between you and the other driver and no judge will convict ...

There is no correlation between your tickets and the signs going up. It takes waaaaaaaaaaaaay longer for things to happen. That's just a coincidence so I wouldn't waste too much mental energy on that aspect of this.


This (the signs going up) was actually the entire case. The signs were not in accordance of the by-law for almost a decade.

Glade ...

This has turned into an educational thread for all with added bits of information as we go along. The power of the online forum !

Don't throw good money after bad. A good paralegal, unless there is something we're not being told here, will have a nigh on impossible time beating this.

The prosecutor should review the Crown Brief prior to the meeting so that they know what sort of deal to offer. A first-time offender should be treated differently to a serial offender for example. He or she likely will also want to know what kind of case there is and whether they feel they'd like to bargain in away or go for the original charge ...

I don't see anything in the narrative that would warrant a withdrawal of the charge. Effectively she drove into an immovable object, did she not ? That would be as clear as careless gets. You might get a deal down to a fail to turn out to avoid collision but the factors you listed, traffic, nausea etc do not take away from the fact of the driving.

The ticket will have a road listed as the location, does it not ?

Arrest powers
Assisting officers
217. (1) Every person called upon to assist a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act in the arrest of a person suspected of having committed any offence mentioned in subsection (2) may assist if he or she knows that the person calling on him or her for assistance is a police ...

A few quick points as I'm heading out.

a. There is nothing in the Act that says a vehicle involved with this offence has to be on a highway.
b. The area where you are stopped does have an exit, both through the drive through and also back through the entrance - there is an arrow on the tarmac visible on the photo
c. You say you had no intention of ...

Same answer, I'm afraid. Depends on if the judge agrees with you. The officer is basing his satisfaction on his training. It is up to you to demonstrate that the police universe's training is inadequate. It could get expensive because the crown will appeal a loss rather than have every speeding ticket in the province thrown out.

Or they might ...

It all depends on whether the justice will accept that the test is sufficient. If he does then you can go on until the cows come home and you'll still be found guilty. If he agrees with you then you get off..........but so does every other person charged with a speeding offence.

When you are done with the officer, you will then be able to get on the witness stand and you will basically tell your side of the story, most importantly you need to say that you are certain you passed the line and entered the intersection before it turned red.


Except that he is only 'pretty sure'. You are counselling perjury again. One day ...

You might want to proof-read that.

How is the government wasting money if 'they' are laying charges that are correct. The concept of innocent until proven guilty is supposed to protect the innocent. If you know you committed the offence yet play games with the court process to try to get off then it is absolutely you that is wasting the tax payers resources.

You could always take a law course and not waste taxpayers money ?

Exactly. There are altogether too many people who complain about taxes and then waste government resources. This of you who have been here a while will know that I thoroughly disagree with 'fishing hole' enforcement but equally I am dismayed by people who know they have broken the laws playing all sorts of tricks to get out of actually saying yes I ...

jsherk wrote:

Did they give you a copy of video or only let you watch it? In my opinion, if they did not give you a copy, then they still have not fulfilled their obligation to disclose it to you.

I would agree with this.

or rather than ask every copper if it's them, ask one where Cst Bloggs is as you want to discuss something with him. Might work.

unsureof wrote:Anyone know for sure?

Why not give your insurers a call? They're obviously aware of the issue so it shouldn't have any impact.

Either will work. Crown Counsel, Prosecution.....doesn't matter. Personally I use Crown Counsel, Crown for short obviously.