Search found 380 matches

If you just pay your ticket, you:
* pay $294 + $65= $359 total; and
* receive 4 demerits

If you fight the ticket and they amend it back up to 50 and you're found or plead guilty, you:
*pay $487.50 + 115= $602.50 total;
*receive 6 points; and
* are eligible for a driving suspension directly from the court.

You already received a big break ...

Decatur wrote:Just make sure you read over the sections of the regulation pertaining to exemptions for commercial use of hand held devices to make sure you fit all of the points for the exemption.

Especially section 12(2)(1) of the Regulation where it says "Drivers of motor vehicles clearly identified as courier delivery vehicles."

I now figured out what you're doing: you're attempting to import the definition of "sign" in section 144(9) to section 182(2). However, this is contrary to the principles of statuory interpretation. They are independent provisions and offences. Section 182(2) is not restricted by the same "intersection" limitation you are trying to argue. It was a ...

Are you trying to argue that as a whole the HTA doesn't apply to those exiting from a private road/driveway on to a "highway"? Or are you arguing that signs that are not on "intersections" are not enforceable? Or are you arguing that without specific provisions dealing with existing from private roads, no rules apply? Its getting quite hard to ...

From your picture, I couldn't see the 'no-left' sign on the utility pole referred to by Stanton. However, Google maps cleared that up . Stanton is correct. Your left turn would be in violation of THAT sign since that sign conforms to the rules of the HTA, which applies to all motor vehicles entering the 'highway' (i.e. public road) from the parking ...

As previously mentioned, providing the exact test times in the notes is not always essential. Courts have accepted when an officer testifies that they always test the device at the end of their shift and would only make a note of things if the test failed. Bottom line: unless the officer referred to some documentary evidence that you didn't receive ...

Providing exact test times is not essential for speeding offences. Recent court decisions (by judges, not JPs) have been very clear on this. If the officer testifies that they tested the device BEFORE and AFTER your reading and were qualified to operate the device, then that is sufficient. Its not an 'element' of the offence to have to provide test ...

Stanton is correct. You simply attend the MTO, pay your $150 and should get re-instated (if there's no other reason for a suspension (i.e. unpaid fines, etc.)). After all, thus far, you have only been suspended 'administratively' (i.e. by the MTO) , whereas once convicted (if that occurs) you'll be 'prohibited' from driving as per a criminal order ...

Unfortunately, the FSCO's Dispute Resolution service is limited to Accident Benefit claims. Therefore, court is your only option since your claim would be related to the physical damage (fault determination). If the total damages are under $25K, then you could proceed via small claims court (and might be able to do so without a paralegal or lawyer ...

Unfortunately, you'll likely have to sue in order to challenge your insurer's fault determination. It all depends upon the provisions of your insurance policy on whether you can pursue alternative dispute resolution such as arbitration. However, in Ontario, auto insurance policies follow the standard OAP 1 policy. You can view OAP 1 here . You'll ...

An incorrect birth date is not a fatal error. Your best option is therefore to set it down for trial and then on the trial date either hope the officer doesn't attend (whereby it should get withdrawn) or take a reduced fine offer by the prosecutor. That offence is a black-and-white one (there's no grey area). Your sticker was either expired or it ...

If I were you, I would NOT use that video evidence in court--it doesn't help you. On the contrary, I'm amazed that you weren't charged with careless driving. The video is clear that you were driving much faster than the speed limit of 40km and you were either not paying attention or didn't care about safety. Keep in mind that if an officer ...

Unfortunately, small claims court is the only way to obtain recovery. You would have to sue both the City and the tow company. You'd also have to subpoena the by-law officer (who made the comments that it was an error) and the tow truck driver (as a witness) (and pay each a $6 witness fee!) to establish your case. So, in addition to paying your $75 ...

It all depends on the JP. If they apply correct evidence law than the answer is NO. You would need to bring in the Google employee who took the images to authenticate them, confirm it hasn't been doctored, and whether the location is an accurate reflection of the location at the relevant time. Without proper authentication, the image is prejudicial ...

The Globe and Mail recently had an article related to some of your concerns. You can view it here .

Bottom line:
* According to the MTO, bicycle infractions are not applied to the driving record (as long as the ticket says you were on a bicycle).
* no demerits apply if the "vehicle" was a bicycle. However, this information must be clearly outlined ...

Its one thing to appear as 'agent' for someone, and something totally different to 'represent' them. In Ontario, you need to be a lawyer or paralegal to represent someone in traffic court. Section 82 of the POA allows a person in traffic court to act by representative. The definition of "representative" in section 1 says that is "a person ...

Since the matter was dealt in court, its not the 'set fine' rate that applies, but rather the 'statutory' rate. In your case, at 29 over you should have paid:

29 km @ $4.50/km = $130.50 {fine}
$25 {victim fine surcharge}
$5 {court fee}
----------------------
$160.50 {total payable}

That's assuming it took place in a regular zone. If the offence ...

bend wrote:

flyguy wrote:Would bringing my 90+ year old grandparents who were passengers help my case?

No. It's irrelevant.

+1. Then again, if your grandparents will give you the money to just pay the fine when you get to court, maybe its not a bad idea to bring them along!

If you have no prior record and the officer didn't reduce it at roadside, then you have a good chance of getting it lowered to 29 over (3 point offence). If however, you have a prior speeding charge within the last 2-3 years, then it likely won't be dropped at all. And if it was reduced by the officer, then you can be fairly certain that the speed ...

Glad to hear the matter got resolved and your daughter can have this stress lifted. That in itself can often times be the greatest win. Best wishes.

Not reviewing the original driver's licence from the defendant would undoubtedly create reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the defendant. After all, how will the officer be able to claim they confirmed the identity---based on an unauthenticated copy? Such being the case, I would definitely go to trial with any charge laid.

Unfortunately, you received bad advice. One should never easily accept or condone a prosecution adjournment in order to always protect your 11b (unreasonable delay) rights. You always want the court to know that you are ready to proceed to trial and the prosecution's actions are creating hardship/prejudice to you and/or your case. Even if the court ...

Police officers (and their family) are quite frequently charged, both on and off-duty. Its actually quite common.

Every jurisdiction has what's called 'conflicts court' set up for these types of matters. On those specific court dates, they bring an out-of-town prosecutor in as well as justice of the peace, so that there are no possible conflicts ...

You can pay your fine any time BEFORE you are arraigned (i.e. the moment charges are read to you in court and you are asked to plea). If you pay the ticket outside the court, then the 'set fine' rate (the amounts on your ticket) apply. However, if you plead guilty in court, then the 'statutory rates' apply (which are a bit higher).

In your ...

You should expect 8-10 months from offence date to go to trial trial (on simple matters). I have no idea where you got the notion that your trial must be within 45 days after a not guilty plea---that's not how it works. Just the intake period can be up to 2 months sometimes!

Other than a by-law infraction, there is no HTA offence with no points that fits your scenario. In any event, it is highly doubtful that a prosecutor is going to agree to a By-Law infraction---its extremely extremely rare; and almost non-existent if you have any driving record. When such offers are made, its usually because they are quite iffy on ...

If your daughter's representative can't personally attend, they should retain an agent to attend in their place. That's what a professional does and that's what you are paying them for--representation. If they don't do this, your daughter seriously needs to re-consider whether to continue using that representative's services. A represented ...

They aren't going to withdraw the charge if the evidence is there and certainly wouldn't drop it down to a by-law for a variety of jurisdictional reasons. Bottom line: could you have safely stopped? That's all that matters. When faced with an amber, the driver MUST stop unless he cannot do so safely. The onus shifts to the defendant to establish ...

As I stated before, the charges are unique--they are not the same thing. You either entered the intersection when the light was red (i.e.: Red Light – Fail to Stop), or you entered it when it was amber and you COULD have safely stopped (i.e. Amber Light – Fail to Stop ). That's also the reason why the set fines are different. After all, it is A LOT ...

" Amber Light – Fail to Stop is a separate and distinct offence from Red Light – Fail to Stop and cannot be considered to be an included offence ." That's straight out of paragraph 22 of the Reiber decision . Keep in mind though that the Reiber decision is not an appeal decision and thus not binding on JP's---just persuasive since it indicates what ...