Search found 888 matches

Big gamble indeed. It's a slam dunk trial so there's very little incentive for them to be accommodating. Worth a shot though.

I did and when I was an instructor at police college I taught that to all recruits.

I think you need to obtain disclosure so you can see the evidence against you. But you have to play your part in getting that. They are clear that they don't mail it and you have failed to provide them with the required phone number.

You said you made the turn in safety so why would you think there could be a Dangerous Driving charge out there.

Yes in theory police have 6 months to lay a charge but in reality unless it's something very serious they won't bother. If I got a late filing notice or fatal error back from the justice I'd just turf it and move on with my day.

You are sending two documents to two different offices. The Crown won't have your phone number from the election form so will be able to say they couldn't contact you.

I highly recommend everybody have a dashcam and record ALL interactions with police because most of the time the courts will always side with an officers testimony over an accused. If they are doing their job correctly, then they have nothing to worry about.

Kind of the same about people talking to the police. If you're doing nothing wrong then ...

Nope. You choose to drive, you agree to play by the rules.

I'm interested, do you have friends record your interaction with bank tellers ? Waiters in restaurants ? What made you choose to have someone record this interaction with a professional doing their job.

Serious question.

If it's a choice between a conviction in court or the plea deal then obviously the plea deal looks good but something isn't right.

Section 172 reads:

"Racing, stunts, etc., prohibited
172. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Offence
(2 ...

And there is no real possibility of saving £30 !

The radar will give a reading for the faster vehicle and the officer's eyes will tell him or her which vehicle is moving faster.

Section (7)(1)(a) says the vehicle has to have a valid permit - which it did. Section 7(5) on the other hand says it has to be carried. The charge section is wrong.

Perjury is not lying in the public. It's lying under oath

I thought I heard somewhere that the sticker on the registration was a nice to have these days. Could be wrong but you might want to check.

Charge should have been Sec 159. I don't believe the elements of Sec 134 are made out as you describe it.

OP. That is a pretty miserable ticket and yes people drive like that all the time. The officer is wrong about the stunt driving, that applies when you gun it as soon as the lights turn green to beat the traffic that is going straight ahead opposite you.

If it was 144(18) I don't think that applies to you as it talks about entering the ...

Oak we've got two different posters about 2 different offenses here. Makes it confusing !

Robfer, I feel for you. A 5 over ticket is just nonsense in my opinion but it is what it is. Yes, you are better off with your strategy of delaying it so that the first ticket drops off. The notes are rock solid and the chances of the officer not turning up in court are greatly diminished these days (but you might get lucky, who knows).

I'm afraid ...

Unless there is video evidence so you're going to want to get disclosure to see what the crown has available too them.

Get the time of the incident and contact Uber. They track their vehicles should be able to tell you exactly where you were at that time.

These are very serious charges which will have a catastrophic effect on your driving ability. I would be doing everything possible to determine where I was on the date and time in question and also where my vehicle was. Is it possible someone else was driving it ?

Ah I see, I thought you were following the initial car that left the road. Unfortunately the bottom line is that your action caused the second vehicle brake. Certainly the conditions played a big part in that but either he braked reasonably in which case you are at fault or he had no need to brake at all in which case you would need to have good ...

Unless you are in real financial hardship then it is unlikely they will reduce the fine although they will give you time to pay.

Even though the ticket has no points it will count against your insurance so if you really believe that it would have been dangerous to stop in time then you can try and win at trial by saying just that. It's not like ...

Better option would have been to proceed to the same safe U-turn location you used in the first place rather than turn close to the brow of a hill. How bad were the conditions ?

I worked with many police officers in Ontario who wouldn't ticket drivers who were polite and apologetic. Of course there are those who are giving you a ticket regardless and by being apologetic you are going to screw yourself at trial but personally I have always advised friends and family to go the polite and apologetic route - and have been ...

Following on from the thread a while back about not talking to the police, sometimes that definitely doesn't work in your favour. I've had occasions where I've wanted to offer a warning but the offender has adamantly refused to accept responsibility leaving me no option but to charge.

Refusing to open the door cost this fellow big bucks:

https ...

Ontario Highway Traffic Act, Section 144 covers the following information regarding Amber Lights:
Amber light
(15) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed with caution. R.S.O. 1990, c ...

Yes they are contradictory. Of course the only person who's opinion matters is the justice. Yet another case of laws being badly written ! Of course that allows lawyers to make lots of money arguing over ambiguous legislation.

In fact technically no ticket given to a driver should be signed as the officer is signing after the fact to say that the ticket has been issued.

I read the case law differently. It says:

"Sections 3(2)(a)&(b) of the POA are of further guidance. These sections set out that an officer may issue a Certificate of Offence but must complete and sign it to certify an offence has been committed and she/he has issued either an Offence Notice including the Set Fine or a Summons. The use of the word ...

The officer has to sign the actual ticket that goes to court. The part that goes to the driver does not require a signature.

Had a look at Google maps. It's not much of a bend.