Search found 888 matches

Must have been a crowded docket !

If the courts are willing to accept the verbal testimony then it would be up to you to locate and view a copy of the manual. There are many defence lawyers who have purchased their own radar units, intoxilysers etc to gain the knowledge that they feel they need to challenge charges.

If the manual was being submitted as evidence then it would need ...

It does happen where two cars are pulled over but it makes for a situation where the officers notes need to be very detailed. I'd go with jsherk's suggestions in other posts and get disclosure to see what the notes say.

There appears to be two versions. At first you say you changed lanes because the officer put his lights on then later you say you changed lanes because he had no lights on and was tailgating you ?

That is a pretty weak charge.

The bit of the manual you are after is the testing procedure, right ?

Perhaps there were no changes in the testing procedures between the manuals. If the changes were on other non-relevant stuff then crown could argue you received the information that you were looking for.

Correct. A charge means nothing, only a conviction. Technically you're supposed to report a conviction to your insurance company when you get it but no one does.

I'm not convinced the visual obstruction is that bad. If you look at the picture unless the hood of the vehicle is25 feet long, there is still quite a lot of room to inch up to the edge of the through highway which would give more visibility.

Sign and bylaw do appear to match. I had a look at a (blurred) picture on google maps.

Strange sign though, most prevent turns during rush hours, not specifically allow them during it.

I think you'll find the crown will want to discuss all three tickets.

It would be EXTREMELY unlikely that a new charge would be laid just because you asked for disclosure. Firstly it could be viewed as an abuse of process as you are entitle to take all steps to defend yourself, secondly the officer will have others things on his mind.

If I wrote a stunt (and that's a full stunt with tow and everything), by the time ...

I'd suggest a call to Revenue Canada might be in order for Option B

$350 for paperwork ? Wow

Thanks for the update. Probably a good move - Careless can be hard to prove for the Crown but the ramifications if you lose are so significant that it's often best to accept the lesser charge.

I wouldn't think so. There is nowhere to go for a reduction on this charge. You either had alcohol in your system or you didn't. Defences would be on the accuracy of the instrument but that is a major-dollar defence. I'd really try and tie them down as to what EXACTLY they think they can do for you.

Plus the fact there is no way you drank 1.5 beers, didn't drink anything for an hour (plus the time it takes to exit the stadium and get to where you were stopped) and blew over 0.05. Unless they were very massive beers or super strength.

Nope. Good call. She may not have been drunk this time but those indicators definitely required checking up on.

When did the alleged offence actually occur ? Was it the 7th or the 8th ?

Wow. What a chicken *EDIT* charge. It's stuff like this that turns people against the police. Did you stop completely ? I don't think so but near as dammit.

Careless is often laid in rear end collisions. I have always disagreed with that as the correct charge is normally Fail to Turn Out to Avoid Collision. By laying the Careless the hope is that people will bargain to the Fail to Turn Out and prevent a trial whereas if it was laid in the first place then there would be no incentive to make a deal ...

The right turn sign is a lane sign referring to a lane that is clearly blocked off. Not a hope a JP will buy that.

Court system working as it should. Thanks for letting us know the outcome.

Or someone could just move into the Ecuadorian Embassy.....

Plus your report is unclear. Was it a male or female officer ?

You are alleging that a police officer with a really good job and pension would risk it all just to get you on a ticket. Possible ? Yes. Likely ? No. They cannot prove that it was your car they got in the beam but they will testify to that effect and, absent any evidence the contrary, the judge will accept it.

An officer giving a reduced speed is ...

Grace periods are tough. If 6 minutes is a grace period then what about 7 ? If 7 is ok then what about 8 ?

Mind you the same could be said for speeding as well.

No, the charge still exists but the compelling to court part is flawed. They can just re-serve you.

No, an appeal is against a error in law committed at the trial. The fact that your representative did a poor job is between you and them.

How about Community Patrol instead of using Response as presumably you aren't responding as opposed to patrolling.