Ontario Highway Traffic Act

Insurers do generally provide a discount to individuals 25 or over. Just as they do if you are retired, don't commute to work, have your home insurance also with them, are a university student, have been with them for several years, etc. Those are merely discounts. So, you may qualify for one or more.

However, regardless of how old a person is ...

Unfortunately, it does not appear that the City of Ottawa publishes the actual Transit By-law on their website; only the set fines portion. I was however able to find an older version of their Transit by-law which you can read here .

If you go to section 35, you'll see it discusses Penalties. You'll notice that only a fine (and prohibition order ...

If you're found guilty or plead guilty, then you won't have a clean driving record. You would have the conviction on your driving abstract. The demerit points are removed after 2 years, but your insurance company is able to use the conviction for their purposes for longer. Some use 3 years; others use 5-7 years! Each company is different. So, I'm ...

I'm not quite sure what you want anyone to tell you. The decision really is yours to make.

It all depends upon how much time/energy you are willing to invest in this. While the likelihood of winning these types of cases are usually not much higher than say 30%, that's still enough for some folks to be willing to try their luck. If the officer did ...

They certainly CAN amend up and regularly do so. The Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Winlow allows that. In paragraph 75 of that decision, you will also notice that the court recommends the accused be given an adjournment when they are notified that there will be an amendment to the speed on that day. That is why I stated that you WILL get an ...

Request a trial. Once you receive your notice of trial, request disclosure in writing and pick it up. Then, review the officer's notes for any errors. Then, attend your trial date. You might be one of only a few who get lucky if the officer doesn't show up. Don't expect any offer from the prosecution---in fact, expect that they will amend the ...

Daggx is correct. The set fine is wrong. For section 144(27) the set fine is $35.00 for a total payable of $50.00. As such, do not respond to the ticket and it should be dismissed by the JP as being a fatal error in your absence. If for some reason the JP misses that error and does not dismiss it, then simply appeal the decision and you will win on ...

If you're serious about pursuing this angle, then definitely read up on "highway hypnosis" (aka. white line fever) which may help your case. This superior court decision explains it a bit ( Mason v. Burke ).

Also, be aware that the general basis of your defence is actually a concept called "automatism". Highway hypnosis is merely a form of ...

Keep in mind that I answered your question from a theoretical perspective. Its always a whole different ballgame as to what should be done in practice. First off, you truly don't know if the other person's accident was as a direct result of anything you did or didn't do. Secondly, even so, the other person would have a very difficult time proving ...

Actually, it all depends on a concept called 'foreseeability'. If you knew or ought to have known that the debris was on the road and could negatively affect another person, then you can be held liable. That makes sense from a pubic policy perspective. Otherwise, people would be free to create a safety hazzard for others without any consequences to ...

Your 'optical illusion' argument sounds like a bunch of gibberish. If a person is crossing the road and you think you're seeing an oasis in the horizon or a unicorn----should you escape liability? Of course not! I'd be VERY cautious of raising that type of argument on the record since it logically leads one to question whether your 'optical ...

You're still going to be left with the actual device's readings in evidence. So, if the officer testifies that he/she locked the vehicle with the device within the new speed limit zone, then even if he did not conduct a proper visual estimation (or none at all!) within the new speed limit area, then the case law (as I provided in my earlier post ...

It sounds to me like you are planning to argue the Kologi case principle that since manufacturer instructions require officers to estimate the speed before activating the radar unit, a reasonable doubt is raised on the accuracy of the device where the officer fails to do so. The decision in Hovinga followed and explained it well. However, that was ...

There's no fixed standard. Each officer will clearly have a different threshold---some will be able to estimate speed farther than other. Plus, there are several variables at play such as the distance of the vehicle from the officer, weather, lighting conditions, curves/bumps in the roads, etc. Regardless, unless you plan to sue the officer for ...

... couldnt I ask for them to prove that the camera was in proper working order during the day of the offense?...

Actually, in that offence, the onus is on YOU to provide 'evidence to the contrary' that the vehicle didn't run the red light; not the other way around! They don't have to prove the camera system was working. The mere production of ...