Ontario Highway Traffic Act

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 ...