Search found 888 matches

Call her detachment and ask to speak with a supervisor

I would call an insurance broker - they will be able to give you exact answers.

Well you clearly have the argument fixed in your head. It's a shame I'm out of the country because I'd enjoy watching the trial. Police officers routinely make speed estimations followed by radar lock very quickly and with remarkable accuracy due to practice. If a vehicle crests a hill I could guesstimate the speed and get a lock in time to see the ...

V = d/t

D = 25m *
T = 2 s **

V = 25/2 = 12.5m/s or 45km/hr

The officer's statements contradict the radar gun reading.

* officer claimed visual estimation started at 75 metre and ended with a radar lock at 50 metres.

** officer claimed visual estimation took 2 seconds and then she obtained radar reading which isn't instantaneous.

So ...

There is no charge !!!!!!!!

I'm as confused as jsherk. What is this $180 fine you talk about ? You are issued the 3 day suspension roadside, that goes to the MTO and that's it. No conviction, no fine.....

If Service Ontario knows about it the the paperwork was forwarded.

If the courts don't agree with you then you'd better have the wallet to go to the Supreme Court.

Your timings don't make sense. Car is seen to be exceeding the limit. Courts have held that exact estimate is not needed. Button is pushed, reading obtained. You don't have to be the only car in the beam, there is no aiming required (if she's running ...

If it was radar as opposed to lidar then there is no aiming involved. She sees your car and hits a button and gets a reading.

He can still charge you criminally but that's almost certainly not going to happen. Looks like he changed his mind.

Nicely researched

You picked an offence that is a bit of a slam dunk for the prosecutor. Either you had the plate on or not and you've admitted you didn't. Your only hope is if the officer doesn't turn up but that happens much less frequently than in days gone by.

The Act says:

"Stop at through highway
136. (1) Every driver or street car operator approaching a stop sign at an intersection,

(a) shall stop his or her vehicle or street car at a marked stop line or, if none, then immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk or, if none, then immediately before entering the intersection;"

so even if you ...

Indeed. If a number of infractions occur and any one of them results in a Summons then all of the documents have to be Summonses. To the OP, are you sure your son didn't get another Summons for a non-ticketable offence that he hasn't told you about ?

No. It's still the same. If you cause intentional damage its Mischief, if you cause unintentional damage you can be sued civilly.

If intentional it's criminal mischief. If unintentional you could be sued civilly for the damage because it morally it isn't that you should 'maybe' fess up.....you bloody well should just like you'd hope someone to admit to it if they did the same to your property.

Quick question for you jsherk I read the post that you linked "game of court". So does this mean I should hire an attorney or should I still represent myself? If I represent myself and I lose I could always appeal and then hire an attorney or is it better to hire one now? Also to answer your question previously the road was very busy and their was ...

I'd be very surprised if you get offered a deal on the No Insurance because it is a slam dunk and a very serious charge. You either did or did not have insurance and you didn't. Pretty much the same with the other charges.

Unless you can prove that you were going to get it tested at the garage the prosecutor isn't going to believe you because that ...

That's a question you'd have to take up with a justice in court !

No. The section reads:

"4. A speed limit sign shall be erected on the right side of the highway, facing approaching traffic, not more than 4.5 metres from the roadway, and the bottom edge of the sign shall be not less than 1.5 metres or more than 2.5 metres above the level of the roadway. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 615, s. 4."

But yes I agree that the ...

I doubt your driving instructor told you to break the law. At least I hope not !

The fact you locked your brakes up means you did not have full control of your car because that means you were skidding.

From your report it doesn't sound like stunting applies. I do question your report though. The buses were doing 60 and you pulled out yo overtake and we're doing between 60-70 ? I call bullshit especially in a car that you admit has fast pick up.

I suspect you are going to get a warning although the bus driver may go ahead with a statement that ...

Your cop cousin is an idiot. Ask him/her if they've ever made a mistake before......

From your description it doesn't sound like it was a crossover.

Sorry. Ignore all my previous comments. I was completely reading this wrong.

Personally I would place blame on vehicle B. Without marked lanes this is a one lane road. I suspect, however, that the insurance company will split the blame.

The Act says "199. (1) Every person in charge of a motor vehicle or street car who is directly or indirectly involved in an accident shall, if the accident results in personal injuries or in damage to property apparently exceeding an amount prescribed by regulation, report the accident forthwith to the nearest police officer and furnish him or her ...

but what's the yellow vehicle doing on the wrong side of the road ?

Regardless, it's at fault

The phone call will have been recorded. I would put that in your list of things for disclosure. You may well not get it but at least you can show you asked for it.

If you hit the pole at 7:00pm and made your calls at 7:09pm why are you saying you reported it at 9:00pm in your original post. Can you clarify please.

Yes, sorry, I read it as one way as well.