Search found 380 matches

If you don't plan on going to trial, then you really shouldn't waste your time and just pay the ticket. As previously mentioned, all this will do is re-open the matter. The court will correct any flaw via its jurisdiction in s. 85 of the POA and rely upon the OCA decision of Wadood .

In paragraph 14, the Court of Appeal says:
An important goal of ...

So, did you not attend your ERM on Feb. 12? If so, then the conviction is correct since you failed to attend. I hope you didn't just rely on the 30 day time frame provision as some sort of perceived fatal error and not attend your ER--is that what you did? If so, I wouldn't say that because it will not be re-opened. If we were talking several ...

If the disability parking sign is non-existent or not per the regulation's standards, then the prosecution can't prove its case because that is an essential element they have to prove. However, failing to see the sign is not a defence nor is any error in judgement by the defendant. That would only be accepted (and evaluated in a strict liability ...

You're right that they had to reschedule your ERM within 30 days of Dec. 17/19 (as per POA s.5.1(4)). That would mean your second meeting should have taken place by Jan. 16/20. Of course, this is all assuming that you requested the rescheduling of the ERM BEFORE Dec. 17/19. If you didn't then you were convicted on that day.

However, in seeking ...

Go to your local POA court and file the paper work requesting a re-opening. They'll grant it.

Once they do, don't bother with an ER meeting on that offence since the prosecution can't reduce anything----the $500 set fine on your ticket is already the minimum statutory fine (which neither they nor the court can lower any further). Plus, no one ...

That offence is an absolute liability one; meaning a 'due diligence defence' is unavailable to you. In other words, take the $150 offer and walk away. While your visor story is unfortunate, it can't be accepted as a valid defence under absolute liability offences at law. So, your best bet is to just take a reduced penalty and make sure it never ...

Its the insurance litigators that you have to worry about! A lot of the insurance company employees play nonchalant about a lot of things until the lawsuits start---then their positions seriously change. That's why its always important to deal with them in writing. Numerous cases have gone to the Court of Appeal and even to the SCC dealing with ...

Not reporting incidents such as tickets to your insurance company is one of the most idiotic things a person can do. The moment you have any insurance claim, they will deny you coverage for failing to abide by your contractual obligations. It happens quite frequently. You might get lucky where the insurer will at least refund you your premiums ...

It really goes to how much time you are willing to invest on this on the very limited probability of success. Most people would just pay the ticket and move on. Here's why:
First, there is virtually no chance a prosecutor is going to give you any deal on the permit charge----you already got super lucky on the speed warning.
Second, this is a super ...

I don't think the odds are in your favour. After all, you are 27 years old (not a teenager anymore!), and really haven't shown that you care about consequences since 1) you were caught speeding (twice) with a G2 within months, 2) did not pay or address your ticket on time; and 3) didn't notify of his address change (which could have been another ...

You need to hire a lawyer or paralegal. The least of your worries is whether you get an additional suspension---which you will if found guilty!

Driving while suspended (under s. 53(1)) carries a minimum fine of $1000 to a max fine of $5,000 and/or up to 6 months in jail! Your license will also be suspended for 6 months (as per s.53(3).

I don't ...

First of all, post the video (if you can and block out your license plate info) so we can all see it.

Second, the video is not the entire case; the officer will testify to fill in a lot of gaps in the video such as where the stop bar is, your estimated speed, etc. So, don't be fooled in to thinking the video needs to prove the entire case; it ...

Bend's comments are correct (as usual). :)

If you don't have any prior convictions, the prosecutor will usually drop the insurance slip charge on a guilty plea to the sign charge. You won't get both charges dropped or reduced; only the insurance slip charge may be dropped, and they will only withdraw it AFTER you've entered your guilty plea to ...

I agree with the other 2 posters. You are 100% at fault. YOU are the one changing in to the other lane---the other driver is simply being nice; they are under no obligation to let you in. Furthermore, the accident speaks for itself---you either didn't have sufficient room to move in to the other lane or you failed to see the other vehicle---either ...

Good luck with your case.

Also, you aren't lying by saying "not guilty." You have the constitutional right to put the prosecution to its test (i.e. prove the case against you). However, you simply should not take the stand because THEN you'd be asked what speed you were going and cannot lie. If you admit to speeding, then it is extremely rare for the court to believe YOUR ...

Like I said before, without the disclosure, you don't know how the officer determined your speed. Testing the device is not very complicated; tuning fork testing is no longer necessary (and hasn't been for several years now). Most of the testing simply involves internal circuitry testing which just says pass/fail when the officer clicks a button ...

If they have the option to have a meeting with a prosecutor in the jurisdiction you received the ticket from, then I suggest you choose that option. At your meeting, they'll give you your disclosure and you'll be able to see what the officer's notes say. He may have used a radar, laser or simply paced your vehicle. Either way, if you have no other ...

Unfortunately, you are limiting the decision's actual practical effect. You see, in practice, all offers must go before the court for acceptance. You can't just go to the counter and pay the lower amount offered by the prosecution after a resolution meeting. So, given the Henry of Pelham decision, the JP's hands are restricted in accepting any ...

Prosecutors can't lower the fine, the points nor the suspension period. The set fine on Drive Handheld is already at the minimum and the Ontario Court of Appeal has decided that the minimum penalty is the base (re: the Henry of Pelham decision).

Prosecutors can no longer lower the fine, the points nor the suspension period on that charge. The set fine on Drive Handheld is already at the minimum and the Ontario Court of Appeal has decided that the minimum penalty is the base (re: the Henry of Pelham decision). Of course, if you choose to go to trial, then the fine may also go up (but that's ...

So, a truck drifts in to your lane and you quickly (presumably within meters) are able to move in to the HOV lane. But, somehow it took you KMs to get back into your proper lane. Why couldn't you just slow down and get back behind the truck?

I think you are going to have a difficult time overcoming the 3rd hurdle of the necessity legal test ...

Are you sure its a 9 that is displayed? It could simply be a faded 8 missing a loop. Scan a copy and post it here for the opinion of others.

Decatur is correct; once they charge you with stunt driving they MUST take your licence and detain the vehicle. Its not discretionary.

They only have the discretion whether to charge you with stunt---but don't have the discretion to decide whether to take your licence and vehicle away once they DO charge you.

In any event, I think the court will ...

You'll need to get your disclosure first to see what the officer is alleging. It may very well be that you are not being charged for stunt driving as a result of speed. A lot of other scenarios can amount to stunt driving, including:
intentionally doing burnouts, drifts outs or donuts
driving in the oncoming lane next to a vehicle for longer ...

I just re-read my post and apologize for the typo I made---you can also make O'Connor applications in the OCJ court as well (not just Superior court). There's a process for it, including giving notice to the 3rd parties affected.

The records you are seeking are not ' fruits of the investigation ' so they are considered 3rd party records. As such, they do not need to be disclosed by the Crown as part of their Stinchcombe disclosure requirements. Rather, you must proceed via an O'Connor application in Superior Court to obtain what's called a " subpoena duces tecum ." You ...

Your question is not without merit---the wording of the law can easily be misinterpreted. While s. 148(1) requires you to share half of the roadway the problem lies with the use of the word "free" at the end of the paragraph.

148 (1) Every person in charge of a vehicle on a highway meeting another vehicle shall turn out to the right from the ...

... not exactly, no one needed to yield, just slow down. Also in this particular case, there was a line of parked cars, rather than an obstacle.

A line of parked cars IS an obstacle. The definition of an obstacle is " a thing that blocks one's way or prevents or hinders progress ". So, ANYTHING (including cars, unicorns, dragons, ghosts, etc ...

The one with the obstacle in front of them is the one who must yield. Its clear as day. Why would the opposing driver (with no obstacle in front of them (e.g. parked car) have to take any steps when they have a clear path? It would be a mockery of traffic law any other way. The odd thing is that many drivers don't understand this basic rule of ...