Ontario Highway Traffic Act

A lot of people seem to get the disclosure right incorrect. The prosecutor merely has to make it reasonable available----they do not have to ensure it is delivered to the defendant. The onus is on the defendant to follow up and retrieve it. Clearly, the prosecution is providing you with 3 reasonable methods of obtaining disclosure. If you don't ...

What prejudice have you suffered because of the delay? After all, the evidence is merely photographic (doesn't require viva voce evidence) and there are no insurance or demerit consequences.

I actually think it will be VERY difficult to win an 11b argument on such an offence because you won't be able to justify any meaningful 'prejudicial' effect ...

Unless you've got a way to defend yourself, I would just take the deal. The disclosure seems fine and there is nothing glaring that presents any defence for you.

As for why they offered you a good deal, likely its because you didn't get any roadside reduction and have little or no record. Had you gotten a roadside reduction, I think you'd be SOL ...

Do case law research on Canlii.org and you'll quickly see the courts have repeatedly held that section 2 (1) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act , requires that the owner or lessee ensures the motor vehicle is insured under a contract of automobile insurance.

The section is not concerned with whether a driver is insured---driver coverage ...

Are you really going to say that you didn't have a clear view of the full intersection (because a bus was blocking your view) yet you decided to make a left turn anyway? That won't cut it----the act is all that needs to be proven; not your intention to disobey the sign. The court will simply say that you should have waited to have a better view ...

Actually, as early as 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada held in the Ladoucer decision that an officer can randomly stop vehicles to check the " the mechanical fitness of the vehicle, the possession of a valid licence and proper insurance, and the sobriety of the driver . "

So, if you don't want to pull down your window, the officer can simply just ...

...In R. v. Ainsworth it makes mention of R. v. Duncan 2012 O.J. No. 6405 which is different from the the one you mention of R. v. Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160)
But I cannot find R. v. Duncan 2012 O.J. No. 6405 on Canlii ... anybody know what happened to it and where it can be found?
Its actually the same decision. The Duncan citation used in the ...

"3 pieces of identification" is Sovereign Citizen horse s***.
I totally agree.

Thankfully, the Sovereign Citizen (aka. Freeman) arguments are being readily dismissed by the courts now. After the decision in Meads v. Meads , which has been adapted in Ontario by several courts now, including R. v. Ainsworth , their arguments truly are treated ...

While your question is easy, the answer is actually quite complex. Statutorily, there is no legislation that requires an officer to disclose their full identity to you. However, as others have consistently stated already, most officers are bound by the polices/rules of their individual police services. If they contravene that, they can be brought ...

You simply need to rely upon the court decision of R. v. Isik. The court held that the sticker portion on the plate is mandatory, whereas the sticker portion on the permit is discretionary. So, if you had your validation sticker on the plate, then that's all that is absolutely necessary.

You DO realize that the prosecution has templates (books of authority, facta, replies, etc.) readily available to reply to Charter applications, right? You're doing ALL this work filing a section 7 application and throwing whatever you think will 'stick' and in about 30 minutes, they'll pump out a reply and gather whatever they can to meet their ...

I highly doubt they'll give you ANY break. After all, you clearly don't like to follow the rules of the road (having had so many demerits that you got suspended), then totally disregard any suspensions imposed on you. Then, you make little to no effort to make things better for yourself by following through on paying your amounts owed. As an ...

Prosecutors know all the charges you are facing and have your entire driver's abstract. That's how they file things---all charges from one set of facts for a defendant are placed in the same envelope/folder. It keeps everything tidy and all correspondence and filings are kept together. Its also easier to schedule officers for court. So, you have ...

It seems like you got one of the new e-tickets (which ARE permitted). The officer's notes do not need to be handwritten. They simply use the laptop inside the cruiser which populates a lot of your data once your driver's license is swiped and then they type in their additional notes. There should be some notes about things like the officer's ...

You're almost there! Just a few insights to ensure you're perfectly clear.

The officer's notes DO matter. If the officer makes no mention of 84km in his notes but only refers to the speed you were charged with, then you can use that to raise reasonable doubt if he testifies to a different speed. In that case, the prosecutor also can't 'amend up ...