Search found 380 matches

Just wanted to bring to everyone's attention a recent Guelph decision where the JP convicted a woman for using her Apple Watch while driving.

Here's the National Post article:

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/a-cellphone-taped-to-someones-wrist-woman-looking-at-apple-iwatch-found-guilty-of-distracted-driving

Your dash cam doesn't show the inside of your vehicle, so its of limited use to the elements of the case. The officer says he saw you holding the phone on your lap and using it (which usually includes touching the phone). The prosecution only needs to prove one. Your defence seems to be that the officer couldn't possibly have seen all of that in 3 ...

Be aware that the law applies "while HOLDING or USING a hand-held". You don't have to actually be holding the cell phone to be convicted; simply using it is enough. So, if the cell was on your lap and you were looking at it for any non-emergency purpose, that qualifies as 'using' it. FYI, a driver was convicted when the passenger held the phone for ...

Its quite normal to provide blacked out portions of the officer's notes---its almost always just info about another case. It is rare if it is redacted (blacked out) AND it also deals with your matter. That's almost never done in HTA cases; you'll find it more in criminal court in serious crimes to protect informant identities or other sensitive ...

It would have been nicer to win after a trial, but you still got the desired outcome. Congratulations! Now, put that seatbelt back in your car!

I forgot you were facing two offenses. Your strategy should therefore be different. When you attend court, do not discuss the case with the prosecutor. Simply tell him you want to go to trial. The reason for this is to not give them a chance to obtain MTO files confirming your plate was expired.

Too often, prosecutors do not obtain official MTO ...

As Argyll states, you make the motion for non-suit AFTER the prosecution closes its case (before the Defence decides whether to give evidence).

So, the steps are:

1) Prosecution calls its witness;
2) Defence cross-examines;
3) Prosecution may re-examine its witness on "new" matters brought up during cross-examination (often called 'reply ...

A motion for non-suit should only be made after the prosecution/Crown has 'closed their case' ; it should't be done during a cross-examination. Do it too early and you simply alert the prosecutor of a weakness in their case for which they can simply call up another witness to 'close the weakness', which they are allowed to do since they have not ...

If they try to amend, just argue prejudice---this is the offence you prepared to make answer and defence to. I highly doubt they would even attempt to seek an amendment, let alone succeed. Worst case scenario, that would be grounds for an appeal. Its not just based on a typo or a simple change but rather a completely different charge with different ...

So, for greater clarity, what is the wording and section you have actually been charged with?

The choices should be one of the following:

Drive with seat belt removed 106(1)
Drive with seat belt inoperative 106(1)
Drive with seat belt modified 106(1) or
Driver fail to properly wear seat belt 106(2)

If it's one of the first 3 offences, then you ...

Stanton is correct; your arguments don't meet the due diligence defence for that charge. A reasonable person would ensure their belt is fastened by tugging on it and if relying on some dash light or audible beep would certainly do everything to look for those triggers BEFORE entering the highway (e.g. look at the dash for such warning). Your ...

+1

For Op's benefit, the case is Brampton (City) v. Robinson.

Have you called in to see if they mailed your notice already? It might have already been sent and you just didn't get it (i.e. lost in transit). For all you know, you coulld have already even been found not wanting to dispute the charge for failing to show up for your trial. I would follow up to make sure all is fine.

To plead guilty, you simply pay your ticket. You can do so online HERE
Alternatively, you can attend any POA court in Ontario and pay in person. Once paid, the system is updated and the matter is noted in error on the docket if it gets listed on the trial docket---(e.g. you've paid less than 2 days before the trial date). If you pay the ticket ...

As your charge was reduced, you won't get any further reduction from the prosecutor. The insurance slip charge is certainly not getting dismissed since you already got an amazing reduction!!!! By the way, if you go through with an early resolution telephone meeting, this just gives them the opportunity to give you the Winlow warning (i.e. warning ...

The interpreter tactic won't work. They have lots of interpreters from some very obscure languages like Aramaic, Tigrinya and even Xhosa. They may only have 1 interpreter that speaks that language in the provincial roster, but they'll fly one in if necessary.

The interpreter tactic generally backfires because it just prolongs your case. The court ...

Op, I hate to break it to you but you already HAVE disclosure----its all on the ticket you received. The pictures were enclosed, as was the information regarding speed, intersection and time after the light was red that the car passed through. You seem to be confusing RLC charges with other HTA offences; but its not the same. There is no other ...

You're not doing anything illegal nor immoral by defending yourself. Its your absolute right to do so---even if you did the offence. So, kudos to you for being principled that way. Most folks don't have the time nor energy to waste on such things because they know that the odds of them winning a case like yours are about 1-2%, plus the consequences ...

You're making life overly complex for yourself. Your tactics are just going to work against you.

First off, as has already been said, disclosure is YOURS to be had. YOU are the one who has to follow up and make all diligent efforts to acquire it. In other words, they aren't going to mail it to you, nor are they even going to write to you to ...

While in the past courts were using the 10 month time frame, the SCC decision of Jordan has changed court priorities and now POA courts are going with the 18 month threshold (from charge date to trial). As courts are now being burdened with trying to fast-track criminal matters, this naturally results in greater delays for non-criminal matters due ...

+1

The speeding ticket will only be amended up at the trial; not when you choose not guilty on the back of your ticket. So, other than time and effort, there's no consequence for choosing the not guilty option on your ticket, and getting your disclosure before deciding whether to pay it or continue fighting it.

If you plead not guilty your speeding ticket will be "amended up" as per the Winlow decision (Ontario Court of Appeal decision). So, you'll be facing the original speed of 131 in a 90 zone. In other words, 41 over (which is 4 points). Your insurance slip charge will stay the same.

The officer gave you a fantastic deal. There is not much chance of ...

...And then, going forward, you need to learn to just leave the phone alone when in the car.
+1

I have very little sympathy for individuals who think tending to affairs of their lives are excuses to drive and use a cellphone. Just pull over and deal with your life and then get back on the road----don't risk the lives of others because you're ...

Stanton is absolutely correct regarding the speed being at the time the first photo is taken. Put simply, your wife did NOT stop at the bar in time and is guilty. As it is an absolutely liability offence, she won't have a defence.

Look at pic 1; she's going 30km and is at most 1 meter away from the stop bar. Yet, at 30km, the average braking ...

Its always nice to discuss such current legal issues. But, unfortunately, several court cases have now decided that the Jordan parameters also apply to POA (e.g. HTA) cases and the 18 month time-limit applies. I personally suspect that trend will continue and the OCA or SCC will affirm that.

However, kudos go out to you guys for trying to argue ...

In cases where the officer served in an investigatory capacity he/she is not giving expert opinion evidence but rather is simply a layperson witness. They are testifying as to what they directly witnessed. They may have their own opinions on things---but those opinions are not admissible evidence---rather, they must testify as to what they saw ...

Is it possible the officer may have amended his copy and the JP accepted it ? Maybe JP ruled it would prejudice your defence ? Interested to know what happens. I'm not aware of any case law, but, according to my understanding of the POA, that's not an option. If subsection 9(1) or section 9.1 applies, the JP examines the Certificate of Offence ...

As Bend mentions, there's not much you can argue to escape conviction on a no insurance charge---you either had insurance or you didn't. If your son decides to fight the charge, the prosecution will likely call his insurance agent/broker to confirm that he indeed did not have any insurance and was mailed or called several times to tell him about ...

You might be in luck since the charge of "Fail to drive in a marked lane" was amended 1.5 years ago. As of Aug. 10/15, the title for the charge was changed to "Unsafe move - lane or shoulder" pursuant to s. 154(1)(a) with the set fine being $85. Follow this link for corroboration .

So, if you were charged today with "Fail to drive in a marked ...