Search found 380 matches

As per the Winlow decision, the prosecutor must give you the Winlow Warning (notice) BEFORE you are arraigned (i.e. enter your plea). While the prosecution can certainly notify you of their intention to 'amend up' (Winlow Warning) anytime before you plea, in practice they usually wait to see you in person---either at your resolution meeting or on ...

The legal authority for 'amending up' and recognizing police discretion to reduce the rate of speed is the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Winlow . That's the case the prosecutor and court will rely up since it is the leading authority. When they talk about giving you a 'Winlow Warning'---that's what they mean; they are notifying you that they ...

As has been stated already, I wouldn't waste time and money getting transcripts yet until you are absolutely certain the suspension you are talking about was NOT on your abstract (record) when you plead guilty. After all, if your guilty plea WAS proper, then you'll have virtually no likelihood of re-opening the case.

As for your questions whether ...

By default, its too late to file an appeal. The limitation period is 30 days from the date of the decision you are seeking to appeal. However, in limited cases, a person CAN seek judicial permission to file a Notice of Appeal after the 30 days. In those cases, you have to file an Application for Extension of Time to Appeal and explain why you didn ...

The speeding fine amount is correct. The cost is actually $2.50/km as per the 'set fine' amounts; not the statutory rate you are referring to. So, the fine should be; 18x$2.50 =$45 plus $5 court cost plus $10 victim fine surcharge for a total of $60.

You can choose option B for both tickets to meet with a prosecutor. They will likey drop the ...

First off, your appeal does not go to the Ontario Court of Appeal (at Osgoode Hall in Toronto). Rather, it simply goes to the Ontario Court of Justice----the appeal is heard by a judge as oppose to a justice of the peace.

Secondly, you likely don't have a winnable appeal. After all, the JP would either need to have made an error of law or a ...

You can request a trial and see if they'll reduce it to a 15 over at trial, but you should know that its not entrapment (doesn't even come close to the legal test for such!). The officer did nothing to make you or encourage you to speed---in fact, he was AHEAD of you. Rather, you just figured that if the officer was speeding, then you could too ...

The officer saved you money on towing and storage fees. He really did you a favour!

So, now, get a friend with a valid licence to drive the car to your place. Don't wait for the church to tow the car since it'll cost you more. If you can't do this tonight, then call the church first thing tomorrow morning and let them know why your car is there ...

@highwaystar thank you for your input into this discussion, it's been very helpful.
Thanks iFly55.

I'll try to answer the question of what happens if you disagree with the fault determination.

As per section 263(4) of the Insurance Act , the insured must sue the insurer. That is consistent with all Ontario auto insurance policies. You can also ...

But, you seem to always forget about YOU in the equation!!!! The fault determination rules don't explain what happens when BOTH parties disobey the traffic signal. They DO make provision when it can't be determined if either party disobeyed the signal----(that's section 15(3))---50-50 fault.

But, in this scenario, it may very well be that they ...

Argyll's point illustrates the real dilemma with this scenario. I agree that perhaps the first vehicle making the left needs to be in the intersection (i.e. to pull up to see the live lanes if cars are blocking his view), but the red pickup was in the wrong. He should have waited at the stop bar and only proceeded in to intersection once it was his ...

You're content and that's all that matters. So, rather than waste more time, I'll just end it here and bid you good luck with your case(s).

If the court date is within 6 months of the offence date, they'll just re-issue the summons and personally deliver it. All your friend likely is doing is just delaying the matter. Still, there's nothing wrong with forcing them to do their job correctly and it doesn't harm her in any way.

I think its now clear that you don't want to accept any fault whatsoever, no matter what the law says (or is silent on) or what any of us tell you. As previously mentioned, you advanced through the intersection when it wasn't clear. Forget about the car you hit----the red truck is right in front of you making a left and yet you're already ...

Check out section 144(8)---even though the green light permits you to proceed, you must yield right of way to those using the intersection lawfully. No matter how you cut it, you simply didn't do that--especially to the red truck turning left.

The next issue is whether the Caravan was lawfully using the intersection. Arguably, the accident would ...

From the 17 second mark, the crossover that is coming from the left is already in the intersection-----well before you are even in the intersection! Yes, the crossover should not have entered the intersection since it was certainly able to stop on the amber and may have even entered the intersection on the red (although the video doesn't ...

daggx is correct in his citation of section 26 of the POA----service must be done personally. There is no mention of electronic service in the POA or Rules of the Ontario Court. So, unless the officer has motioned the court to allow alternative service, email service is invalid. I have no clue why the officer would think otherwise. That's why I'm ...

Clearly, the vehicle with the dash cam is at fault on this one. There were still cars in the intersection (some making left turns) and he/she was already accelerating---failing to yield to traffic. The other car (the one that is coming from the left that is involved in the collision) is clearly in the intersection already before THEIR light turns ...

Most auto insurance policies in Ontario use the base policy set out by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. Review your own insurance policy and you'll be surprised with how similar (if not exact) it is to the OAP1 .

If you check out section 1.4.1 of the OAP1, you'll see that it says:

"You agree to notify us promptly in writing of any ...

Call the court office where you filed the appeal to find out what's going on. It may be that a notice was sent in error to you. You need to clarify that with the court; not the prosecution's office. Secondly, forget about doing an 11b on an appeal. The court guidelines that apply for trials are not applicable to appeals.

The offence of "Drive motor vehicle, fail to display two plates" (as per section 7(1)(b)(i)) carries an $85 set fine. If you'd like confirmation, then check out number 4 on the table of set fines which sets out the list of most offence names..

You definitely do not want to wait until after you are arraigned (i.e. enter a plea) before arguing lack of disclosure. You should review the Stinchcombe decision by the Supreme Court where the court expressly states that the defence should bring to the attention of the trial judge at the earliest opportunity the lack of disclosure so as to avoid a ...

If you really want to argue for a stay, then send the prosecutor's office another letter but register mail it this time---with confirmation of signature! Make sure you specifically spell out the times you've previously requested disclosure. This is really just to corroborate things for the court. And, specifically set out in the letter that if you ...

Just curious----have you been requesting the disclosure from the actual prosecution's office or the court office? If you made your disclosure request and put it in the same envelope as your Notice of Intention to Appear, then that would have gone to the court office, not to the prosecution's office. Disclosure requests must always be sent to the ...

You likely WILL get an adjournment, but may not get the typed notes or video evidence (especially if it doesn't exist). Instead, the prosecutor will likely get you and the officer to go over the notes at the courthouse so that you can understand them. As for the video evidence, if they say one exists, then they will generally permit you to attend ...

Thanks for the reply. I ate a Snickers and am much better now. I wish I could take back all my posts. Oh well...

I don't think the case was dropped because of your illusionary defence. Rather, and more likely, the limo driver tainted the investigation/witnesses by interfering and the police notes/investigation were weak. So, while the prosecutor likely would have greatly loved to cross-examine your experts and challenge your theory, they didn't proceed ...

So, let me get this straight---you're a university student caught doing 135km/hr on a highway and you are actually curious whether a prosecutor is going to reduce it to a parking ticket???? Are you for real??? I've heard of wishful thinking but that's beyond sanity!!!!

They are NOT going to reduce it at all---you already got a road-side reduction ...

If you know it was amber, then simply do the following:

1) Request a trial on the ticket and submit it (within 15 days of the offence date);
2) When you get your Notice of Trial in the mail, immediately request full disclosure from the prosecution about your case, especially the officer's notes and video (if any exists). If video does exist, they ...

The conviction is not off your driving record---only the demerit points are off after 2 years. The conviction remains on your driver's abstract forever.

That's why I said that it all depends on the policy of the insurer. Many insurers will disregard convictions after 3 years while almost all will do so within 5 years. Insurance companies generally ...