Search found 888 matches

Yes

Dual thread. You admit you committed the offence, unless there's a fatal error on the ticket a paralegal is going to be very very very unlucky to get the ticket dismissed. It's a slam dunk for the prosecution - officer testified you ran the red and you need some compelling evidence to effectively say he's lying. If expense is no object, pay the ...

If this is your first ticket then the insurance hit shouldn't be too extreme. Another one would be significant however.

Insurance companies don't care about demerit points. A ticket is a ticket (unless it is a very serious one in which case they treat it worse).

Yes you could simply not have insurance (and not drive !) until the ticket drops off but you're also losing your no claims discount.

The chances of the officer not turning up are very slim these days. You ...

There's no point going to trial because the officer will testify you went through on red (or else he wouldn't have issued the ticket and you can't testify or else you have to say the same thing or purjure yourself.

Weather and ice will be given very little consideration. If it's icy then you are expected to slow down

Illness is a valid reason. Same goes for the defendant: if you're ill, you get an adjournment, if you just don't turn up you get a judgement against you.

If there's a reason why they aren't there such as illness then it might be rescheduled but if they just don't turn up then the charges should be dropped normally.

Absolutely. It's why JPs hate self-representation because they end up having to coach people in the rules of evidence. You ABSOLUTELY will hurt your chances if you reel off a laundry list of irrelevant questions. Decide on what you want to attack in the evidence and focus on that. Questions such as do you remember how many cars you stopped that ...

You would need your friend to act as a witness to say that he advised you when you didn't know what was required and that you were on your way back when you were stopped. The officer should be able to confirm that. All of that may be enough for the justice to overlook the fact that you did leave in the first place.

Only from the date that a conviction is entered, if one is.

I think a better strategy would be to continue your cross along the lines of getting the officer to describe the road, bend etc to see if you could introduce doubt as to the 'did lose sight' testimony. Officers may make errors but don't generally lie on the stand.

When I was instructing at the Academy, I always stressed that it is not an officer ...

Exactly that. I was expected to be able to give the basics of the incident from memory but could refer to notes for specific details like verbatim statements, times, etc etc.

Correct, same as the three day for 50 mg%

The speed limit is not the speed limit in all circumstances. I attended a 4x4 in a ditch and he said it wasn't his fault because the roads were bad and he wasn't speeding. I brought his attention to the fact that I'd managed to reach him a rear wheel drive Crown Vic and that although the speed limit was 80, that wasn't a safe speed that day. He ...

Nope I doubt it because there would have been much eye-rolling from the judge, and a conviction.

Even if the device isn't listed for Canada the evidence would have to show it wasn't accurate. If someone wanted to lay a charge against the officer for using an unapproved device then that would be an entirely different matter.

It's not like a ...

If it's the last day of the month then they could just be stopping you to wish you a Happy Birthday.........or a ticket

I think you dodged one

so really, if "everyone" who had a ticket , challenged it, the system would fall flat on its face

jsherk is right, they do not "have to" offer you any kind of deal, but they always do, the reason is, they do not want to deal with the possibility of you getting off on a technicality and they prefer a guaranteed win over a "most likely" win ...

Yes, it will be one or the other.

I doubt you will be offered any plea deal. I certainly know my Crowns wouldn't have and the chances of him not turning up are almost nil. An officer might miss a simple ticket and will get spanked for it but not for a ticket like this.

77 over on a highway would be taken as very serious but 77 over on a road that warrants a 40 km/her limit is not ...

Someone might be along to help but otherwise you could call the agency that gave you the receipt and hopefully they would be able to help you.

If you kept your posts on topic they might actually contribute to the conversation.

You've gone from too many parking permits, to the choice of police vehicle, to Vern Whit's appointment to the Senate, to insurance company scams.

Wow, take a breath.

If the legal arguments you have made are as rambling and hard to understand as your post I can see the police/court's confusion.

Ah right, I was writing them out by hand.

It does seem like a waste of everyone's time. What we used to do was issue the ticket and told the driver that if they brought the permit with updated address to the station within 48 hours then the ticket wouldn't be filed. Seemed to work well.

It depends on the courthouse. My main courthouse was Walkerton and often the Crown would ask me to speed to the driver and discuss options which I'd then bring back to him for the ultimate decision. One person's experience is not necessarily relevant to all.

Personally I think the boating laws should be the same as on land. You can't get an impaired on a bicycle so why should you get an impaired in a kayak ? Motorised boat ? Absolutely.

Just because you objected would not mean that the officer couldn't use them, just that the judge would then make a ruling on your objection and bearing in mind officer's notes are used in every trial in the country the chances of the justice siding with you are pretty small to say the least.

Surely the justice won't miss such a glaring error. I'd be very surprised if you heard anything about this again.