Search found 380 matches

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 ...

If this happened in a parking lot the charge is moot as the section does not apply to private property. The correct charge would have been fail to report. ops
I just want to expand on OPS Copper's comment, so as to perhaps assist others when dealing with matters on private lots . The SCC's decision in Mansour [/b] is the leading case on the topic ...

No, you need to attend a police station personally; not call. After all, they'll need to confirm your identity before running a check. Be sure to bring your driver's license and another photo id with you. Any police station should be able to help you out.

Just visit a police station and ask them to run a check on you. They'll help you out.

You should re-read my previous post---it answered your questions and linked you to 2 cases on the topic.

How bad is your driving record? Insurers don't drop the insured right away for something like this----your story is therefore either not complete or your primary fight right now should be against your insurer. You can go to court or complain to the Ontario Financial Services Commission to seek recovery. Get legal advice since something doesn't ...

You are right that the HTA does not generally apply to private parking lots. The SCC's decision in Mansour is the leading case on that topic. This topic was also address in Ontario in R.v.Tresham . However, you must still keep in mind a few things:

1) The parking lot MIGHT expressly be classified as a 'highway' via local by-law (i.e. plans of sub ...

I think its going to be difficult to come up with a successful defense on this one. After all, your daughter should have either left a note with her particulars on the vehicle or at least called police to report the incident (then there would have been proof of her intention to not leave). Given that she went about the mall/store for some time and ...

Being careful IS part of being a good driver. So, lets not play with semantics---if she wasn't careful so many times in the past, then she obviously was a terrible driver. After all, we're talking about multiple incidents in her short driving history!

Most convicted murderers do not go on to kill again----however, that still doesn't absolve them ...

I wouldn't say she's a terrible driver but definitely needs to be more responsible...

Have you read the driving history she's already shared on this site?

She's in her 20's and has been driving since she was 14 (Alberta's min. age!) and since that time has already had:
* 2 careless driving charges (within the last 2 weeks)---one for rear ...

I'm glad you claim you've changed now. However, that doesn't mean you won't be penalized for what you have already done. Look up the concept of 'Deterrence' to better understand why.

Good luck with your cases. Not much else can be said.

I'm not lecturing you, I'm laughing at your story! I'd only lecture you if I actually thought it could help.

Now you share with us that you use to apply lipstick while driving, can apparently drive properly but require an instructor to be by your side, and oh yeah, have been driving while under the legal age of 16! Are you really this foolish ...

Emily, you're wrong---it IS funny! Its funny to see you have an excuse for everything. You poor thing!

I'd love to be a fly on the wall during your interview and court cases just to see the reaction of the MTO staff and the Prosecutor and JP.

While you may have passed your tests in the past and think you're a good driver, I highly doubt many ...

If you can't understand the officer's notes, write a letter to the prosecutor and ask them to have the officer type out his notes. Many times, if the prosecutor feels the notes ARE legible, the prosecutor will simply offer to go over the notes with you so that you CAN understand them. Some will offer to do it over the phone, while others will make ...

Emily, I wouldn't worry too much about your situation---just be honest and tell them exactly what you've shared on this site. Show up with your shoes on so that they can see for themselves and tell them about your driving history and of course your driver's training. I'm sure everyone will immediately agree that you should be given another chance ...

If it were me, I'd take it to trial---somethings seems fishy with that deal. Why would they drop speeding at 40 over to disobey sign (a totally unrelated offence), unless their case is weak! Think about it----all they have to prove in the speeding charge is that you were speeding---since speeding is an absolute liability offence. So, why would they ...