Ontario Highway Traffic Act

Actually, Early Resolution meetings are not a waste of time. You generally meet with the prosecutor within 10 minutes of your appointment time, meet with them in a private office for 3-5 minutes, and are then directed to go in to the courtroom to enter a plea (if you're pleading guilty). Your matter is then usually called up within 15 minutes. Its ...

Always ask in writing. But if the prosecutor says there is no video, then you most likely will not get it.

During cross-examination of the officer you can ask "Why did you tell me you looked at video of incident?"

If he answers that there is NO video then you can say "So you lied to me about that?" Your goal here would be to discredit the ...

Its not wise to file both a section 11b and section 7 application concurrently----here's why:

* to get a stay on an 11b application, you must convince the court that you were READY TO PROCEED TO TRIAL but couldn't because of the delays caused by the system and/or Crown. So, that means, you must prove that you were READY ! No more motions needed ...

Did you put any way for them to contact you when disclosure was ready for pick up? They don't mail disclosure out (too expensive!). So, unless you put a convenient way for them to contact you (i.e. telephone or email), they have no obligation to go out of the way to find you. You are the one with the obligation to take the initiative.

To be perfectly honest, I suspect your 11b application will fail due to not enough time having passed yet. After the SCC decision in Jordan, most POA courts ARE adapting the 18 month ceiling as applying to them. The good thing with the Jordan interpretation is that it eliminates the need to have to establish 'prejudice'---since it will be presumed ...

How has your right to make full answer and defense been prejudiced by the 14 month delay?

That will be the biggest hurdle you'll have to overcome in an 11b application. Clearly, you haven't lost your dash cam footage nor have anything that is overly time sensitive such as a dying witness or someone who is moving away, etc. Remember, you must ...

I wouldn't use the video since it clearly shows you speeding. You certainly were not doing 70km/h because if you time 1 second of footage (just before the incident), you'll notice you easily pass 3 dashed white lane lines. Each dashed white line is 3m with a 6m gap to the next. That's a total of 27m (9m/line x 3lines), which works out to about 97km ...

First off,I posted sections of the Sask. HTA; not the Ontario one. The Ont. HTA is very different in structure, style, wording, and detail. Its far from a carbon copy!!!

Secondly, if the officer doesn't show, the prosecutor can't proceed. They would be unable to ID you as the driver and the video would not be able to be authenticated (and so ...

I agree with Bend---you have not only interpreted the law wrong, but the video speaks for itself that you didn't stop (and the officer was no risk to you).

Re-read section 40(4)(a) of the HTA (Sask).

40(4) The driver of a vehicle shall bring the vehicle to a stop:
(a) at every place where a stop sign is erected...

then, subsection 6
40(6) No ...

I actually don't think they'll give you another offer at trial. If you make them go through with preparing for the case, calling the officer and wasting the witness' time (to come to court), they aren't going to give you anything. Remember, there are included offences in careless driving, so even if they can't prove careless (which I think it not ...

In Ontario Court of Justice, one JP's decision is not binding on another JP. But when you find an Ontario Court of Justice appeal case (not Ontario Court of Appeal) that was decided by a Judge, is that case binding on JP's since a Judge decided it?

That's correct.

To further clarify, a Superior Court of Justice decision is binding on an OCJ ...

argyll wrote:...The worst we ever discussed at work was whether a police officer could be disturbed criminally...

Disturbed mentally is a given, but criminally is a whole different issue!

In the Reiber decision, JP Cuthbertson actually follows the Smith decision (as mentioned in Para 21). He can't overrule it since he is only a JP (and its not the same issue-charge anyway). He simply uses it to help him assess whether FTS:amber light is included within FTS:red light. He rules its not.

Regrettably, a lot of cases don't proceed to ...

Post from 27 Jul 2010:
follow too close is not an included offence in careless. It's just often the offence that people plea to when charged with careless. However, you can not be convicted of follow too close at a trial for careless, or vice versa.

This just proves my point. Careless driving is a very complicated offence because it requires ...

No, your trial is for the offence that you are charged with. It's all or nothing for the Prosecution.

That's actually not correct.

There are several included offences as part of a careless driving charge. For example, Follow Too Closely is one such offence. There are other included offences as well. So, OP COULD be found guilty of another ...