Search found 888 matches

You may be able to argue that an appropriate charge is 148(5) Fail to turn out to left to avoid collision. Only $110. I would imagine Crown going for that to avoid a trial on the Careless.

The Provincial Offences Act details the procedures.

I'm not quite sure what side of this discussion you are arguing. It appears that the officer did exactly as he should have.

If you are driving it that short amount then I don't think you have a problem

Just be up front with the insurance broker. They should be on your side. At least you'll know what the true facts are and can sleep easy knowing that you won't have a claim denied. I had a unique situation a while back that I won't go into similar to yours and laid it out to the broker and asked for an email from her with her position so that I ...

You are correct. It IS perfectly legal to ask them to do it. They won't, but you can ask. These occurrences are a record of what, who, when and where officers interacted with the community.

If an officer were to pull me over me over for the same offence and then witnessed a violent assault at the side of the road, I guess he can ignore it because he is legally issuing me a PON??

...

You say a JP will think it is nonsensical to allow cars with HTA violations to pass through a police checkpoint. Will the JP not think it is ...

The matter will revolve around whether the officer had to brake because of your mother's turning across her path. All of the other information that occurred in the parking lot is irrelevant to the charge.

If by front lights you mean the emergency lights on the roof (or visors/grill) then the action required is very clear - pull over to the side ...

No. The record is of the entire incident and you are listed on it just the same as you would be if you had called in to complain about a loud party on your block. The occurrence would indicate that the charges had been withdrawn though.

While you make feel that this was unfair, the law supports the officer's actions. There is nothing to say that an officer must ask if you had been drinking, often a random conversation can be used through which the officer could detect signs of impairment such as slurred speech, glassy eyes, odour of liquor etc.

Your argument that they should have ...

It should be pretty simple. Have a chat with the prosecutor before court starts, explain that it's the wrong charge and I can't see him going ahead with it. He should simply apply to the court to have the charge withdrawn.

Then why is he 'patrolling' the roads ?

You chose to come on this site and then became defensive when people posted relevant answers. Jeez.

I thought any fail to report/remain was reportable regardless of damage.

I think a defence based on the law is stupid and wasteful will not be well-received ! It'll be entertaining though, wish I could be there to see it.

That is why you drive at a speed that allows you to react to situations ahead without having to slam on the brakes. You may have to for a kid that runs out onto the road but you were aware that you were approaching a traffic light and that it had the potential to turn on you, therefore it was your responsibility to be able to stop in time.

Because a defence would be to say that you actually did have proof of insurance........a reason is explained why you didn't

I would guess the officer ran it, printed a copy and put it in the file and whoever does disclosure just included it. I wouldn't worry about it - it won't be admitted at trial.

Do you have those witnesses details for trial ? Regardless I suspect you could cast a reasonable doubt on this.

He had a brain freeze. Ticket should be quashed. You got away with one.

It's not criminal and I spoke with my insurance broker and she said they don't consider it for insurance rate increases. Get two or three and they might.

It is a ticket however and will be on your abstract.

If you're right you may cause him some professional issues but the bottom line is you were suspended, your plate was expired and you didn't have insurance. The nature of how he came to stop you isn't going to alter those facts.

That's ok. The next post will say that the damage to his car was $949 and $50 to hers so he's ok.

File a complaint with the city. No ticket HAS to be issued especially if the ticket issuer doesn't believe an offence has occurred. The manager did this to cover his ass only so that the city didn't have to pay the bill and to leave you on the hook for it (excuse the pun).

I'd be filing a complaint against the manager. The dispute is between the ...

So therefore I say again: you tried to scam her out of over $8,000 by getting her to repair things that were already damaged.

You've gone from wanting $9,000, to wanting $1,000 to not wanting anything to being willing to pay her in the space of this thread.

At this point I think you cut your losses and just go your separate ways.

It will still count against you with your insurance agency. There's the Collision Report and you'll have to declare it on renewal anyway.

As an ex copper, what a chintzy ticket to be given. I feel for you.

Atmospheric, which probably isn't a bad thing.

Yeah, ok...........don't you have another site to go and troll.

I'm not trolling. I know its crazy, but I could not think of anyway to get introduced properly to her. I find it so hard to make new friends and talk to people I don't know and this was my only hope. And I fear rejection so much.

Anyway about the accident, it was a slight bump with ...

You absolutely are scamming. Had she pulled out a cheque book and paid you $9000 on the spot you would have taken it and even arranged for her to pay that full amount. Only when we tell you that you can be charged do you suddenly change your story to that fact that she only caused $1000 of damage. If the proceeding is true, and it's a huge if, how ...

Wow, it's crazy day on the boards. Nothing like changing your story depending on the replies you get. So let me get this straight: you initially were trying to scam the other driver out of repairing things that were already damaged. Now you think you're at fault your claim miraculously drops to EXACTLY the amount you can claim without reporting it ...