Search found 888 matches

I very much doubt it. The Criwn's office knows the same as you when the court date is. You could always reply to the email pointing out the date discrepancy.

So you think 81 in a 50 is fine. What about 90.....or 100 ? 120 ?

You clearly haven't read enough of my posts. I agree there are fishing holes (that's what we call them) that get cops quota tickets (there are no quotas but it looks better on your assessment if you get more tickets) and that frustrated the hell out of me.

What also frustrated me are those who say that all cops are parasites. There are many many ...

No you can't appeal if you win. That's ridiculous.

I've just showed this to two family members and two friends all of who are quite left wing and suspicious of the police. The consensus was that police should nedd to be re-trained and maintenance records are relevant but that your maths argument was splitting hairs. They said that of course if the math showed you weren't going 300 kms an hour if ...

Not really HTA !

But you have to have knowledge that something is stolen to make out the mens rea element of the offence. Having said that, if something is too good to be reasonable then that can work against you. But yes, if you are found to have something stolen then you have to give it up and your only recourse is to sue the person who sold it ...

Depends on the quality of the report, the seriousness and frequency of the offence, the evidence available and workload pressures.

A verbal report for a one time incident might get a warning phone call to the RO...but might not. The likelihood of a civilian witness being the only witness and being successful for the crown is very very slim ...

Yes plus someone in the trunk, beating oncoming traffic at a new green light etc. Over 50 is just one of the criteria.

So everyone should be allowed to speed all they want and only be charged when they hit something?

I am not affiliated with any "Freeman on the Land" group, but simple answer to your question is yes as that is what the common law says that our country is supposedly formed on.

I'm completely surprised by that response. Just so I'm clear, you're ...

That is back to your Freeman on the Land nonsense I'm afraid. So everyone should be allowed to speed all they want and only be charged when they hit something ?

I do agree that some tickets are fishing hole type tickets where there is little public benefit derived from their application but to say that no-one should be charged unless they hurt ...

Insurance wise you'd be better off taking the +40 if they'd drop the other. It's not the fine that matters but the insurance hike.

That's pretty harsh. I would have expected an offer of +29 and the other is dropped.

Because after that it will be something else. Of course if we didn't want to waste the courts time people could just admit to what they did and save the fights for when they actually didn't commit the offence they are accused of !

Novel concept I know.

I dont think the dust will help you. If it was so bad then the device simply wouldn't give a reading. I think you'd have to come up with some testimony to show it does rather than just an unsubstantiated could. But then again I'm not the judge on the day.

Credibility again ? Really ??

The charge is issued to the driver as opposed to the vehicle. The officer will testify that he saw a motor vehicle as defined by the Highway Traffic Act, travelling at an excess speed, stopped that vehicle, identified the driver by means of a photo drivers licence and issued the ticket. That's enough.

A mistake on a ticket doesn't speak to an ...

To me an obstruction is something in the way. The law would have to read that the driver was responsible for the licence plate being able to be read from a certain distance.

So 13(2) reads:
Every number plate shall be kept free from dirt and obstruction and shall be affixed so that the entire number plate, including the numbers, is plainly visible at all times, and the view of the number plate shall not be obscured or obstructed by spare tires, bumper bars, any part of the vehicle, any attachments to the vehicle or ...

Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 8

13. (1) No number other than that upon the number plate furnished by the Ministry shall be exposed on any part of a motor vehicle or trailer in such a position or manner as to confuse the identity of the number plate. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 13 (1).

(2) Every number plate shall be kept free from dirt and ...

Absolutely. You should have to go to the place of the alleged offence for the trial but making people take multiple trips is not reasonable.

It has to be mounted in your vehicle. If it's loose at all then that's a problem. If you're looking at your lap the you'd better have a mount down there.

You not being able to drive is not the fault of the officer or the system. If you want to blame someone then rant against the insurance company. There's nothing under law that says you can't drive, you just have to be able to afford insurance.

You still aren't taking any responsibility for your part in this. You chose to not have a valid sticker ...

I call bullshit. You know three cops well enough to call them up. Then why post on an anonymous forum rather than call them in the first place? Even IF that were true there is ZERO chance all three would tell you to go to court to have it reopened. You pled guilty of your own free will - you can't blame the cop or even a paralegal because you chose ...

Although I must say I would have paid to see the trial where he compares his 4 tickets to being a victim of the Holocaust. Maybe the judge would even have been Jewish for added effect.

I still think he's a troll because we haven't had someone on the site this deluded in a long while.

Absolutely not. He continued driving in his lane without signal, slowing or moving over for 8 seconds. That is a slam dunk conviction. The courts take the free passage of emergency vehicles very seriously. The officer's testimony alone would convict forcing the OP to take the stand where he would have had to purjure himself or tell the story in the ...

Our great canadian system of un-justice does not care about your intentions and there is nothing you can do about it now.

Lesson for you to learn... If you are not guilty of something, then don't plead guilty to it.

....... Except he was guilty of it. Drivers don't get to guess why the police have activated their emergency equipment. They just ...

Ah, good catch jsherk. I'll bet that's it.

So next time you'll pull over right away but not this time? So what if he wasn't pulling you over, you still don't get to proceed merrily on your way. Instead you pull over as far as you can and let him pass.

If you can't remember the rules of the road as you were only taught them aged 16 then either take driving school again or stop driving. Oh ...

Foundation is not related to disclosure

http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/wha ... -evidence/

I'd follow jsherk's advice and check with the clerk