Ontario Highway Traffic Act

IFly55 makes a very good point---you would be best to simply proceed to trial and not seek the Early Resolution option. While it is practically unlikely that the prosecutor would re-file under Part 3 and even less likely to survive legal challenge (especially when challenged with a section 7 (abuse of process) argument and then an 11b for the ...

I have no deal with you, nor have any vested interest in your case. I'm also not your 'bud'. If you ever want people to help you (especially free of charge), you best learn how to be respectful and appreciate the kindness others display by taking time out of their lives to provide you with valuable information. So, good luck with your case. I'm ...

The officer charged you with the wrong offence. You should have been charged under 139(1): Fail to yield from private road.

Since you were exiting the private road (not entering it) and you did not move from one lane of traffic to another, the prosecutor won't be able to prove the charge. So, I suggest you opt for an Early Resolution Meeting to ...

I don't know how you have justified it to yourself that your father-in-law was legally able to represent you when he is neither a lawyer, paralegal or law student governed by the Law Society Act . If you and your father-in-law can't even do basic statutory interpretation (heck, I even gave you the POA section numbers for your reference!)---do you ...

Call the court house where your case is at. They'll tell you your court dates. Otherwise, the prosecutor's office will tell you.

As for seeking an adjournment, you need to serve a Notice of Application for Adjournment on the prosecutor's office (each jurisdiction has their own template form), in addition to filing it with the court. You can get ...

Hopefully, your father-in-law will learn from this. His 30+ years in policing likely gave him very little experience in actual court advocacy. He may have been a witness numerous times and have an excellent knowledge of the court players and procedures---but that doesn't make him qualified for legal representation. For example, there are a lot of ...

Did you or father-in-law even bother to read the Provincial Offences Act ? Read section 82 which says " A defendant may act by representative ". Then, read the definition of a "representative" in section 1 where it says a representative is " a person authorized under the Law Society Act to represent a person in that proceeding ".

If your agent can ...

Here are 2 of the cases they mentioned to you:

Rashawn and R. v. McLachlan . I can't find the "Hansen" decision from Milton---I suspect the citation given is incorrect.

As for the incomplete disclosure motion, you will need to file a section 7 Charter application. The section 7 procedure is quite similar to an 11b application, but the arguments ...

Unfortunately, too many folks don't truly understand the law and procedures surrounding an 11B application. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the overall time is all that matters-----the court will factor A LOT of other criteria to determine what is actually an reasonable delay. For instance, you won't be able to argue that you were 'ready ...

You are charged with an absolute liability offence---meaning, there is no 'due diligence' defense. The only excuse would be to claim a 'necessity'---however, unfortunately, you likely won't meet the test set out in Perka vs. The Queen . Some of the parts of the test I think you'll be challenged with are that the act must be done to 'avoid immediate ...

To the OP, read Bend's comments. They are bang on. Your arguments are either irrelevant or quite flaky-----they won't hold up. You either ran the red or you didn't. As for the victim fine surcharge argument, it would certainly make for an entertaining day in court for the JP and Prosecutor. Its the law and is applicable to you and everyone else ...

If there are witnesses to the incident, then you have the right to be informed of such. After all, they could be witnesses which are beneficial to you and your right to mount a proper defense. As for the investigating officer, if no one else attended, then most likely he is the one and only. Again, you have the right to be informed if there are ...

Go to trial. If there are no witnesses, then the prosecution will have a very tough time getting a conviction. You know what you saw and the fog----the officer came after-the-fact and won't be able to state how you were driving for the road conditions, nor what those conditions were at the relevant time (i.e foggy, wet, animal crossing, etc.).

I ...

As a follow-up, if the private lot has been declared a highway or public land via by-law or court declaration then your argument will obviously be different. However, if you are simply arguing over the definition of 'highway', I suggest you stick to your guns that it does NOT include a parking lot in Ontario. The expansive interpretation is what is ...

You are simply stating the definition in section 1 of the HTA---however, you need to remember that the definition is not exhaustive! See how it only states "includes"---that , means other things may also be included.

For greater insight on the definition analyzed refer to the decision in Rv.Douglas . Like I implied before, definitions like this ...