Ontario Highway Traffic Act

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 ...