Ontario Highway Traffic Act

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.