Ontario Highway Traffic Act

Bluegirl wrote:the latter is true which included a photocopy of the ticket in the disclosure paperwork.

so you did not receive a "ticket" (Provincial Offence Notice), you received a summons.

A summons allows the JP to issue up to the maximum fine for the offence unlike a face value on a ticket, which would be $110.

The full set of notes are:

R F-R T-M A/D-C
R A 97 km/hr @ 150m
R A 95 km/hr @ 100m
R L 96 km/hr @ 75m

I'm usually very good with notes, but that is baffling...
Is there anything at all above or below this? As info before might help to figure it out.

Was the officer moving or stationary?
If moving, in what relation to your vehicle was the ...

Dangerous Driving is not a ticket

Probably to allows for sidewalk issues that the particular section was updated.

But, there is a "catch all" in the regulations, that covers unusual intersections/sing placement too.

47. Where the characteristics of a highway make it impracticable to place a sign or pavement markings as specified in this Regulation, the sign or pavement markings ...

ticket was received in the form of disclosure at first appearance and not at the scene .

None of that makes sense as a ticket is not disclosure.

Either you were
- issued Provincial Offence Notice (will have a $ amount on it) and chose the trial option, asked for disclosure and then received disclosure

- OR were issued a Summons (NO $ amount on ...

Both driver and passengers could be issued an offence notice

Driver:
Driving a motor vehicle with liquor readily available (approx $205 fine)

Each Passenger
1) Having liquor in open container in other than licensed premises, residence or private place ($125)
and/or
2) Consuming liquor in other than licensed premises, residence or private place ...

ponyboyt wrote:. Cop stopped them both and charged them both with racing....

that is a different section if they were side by side "accelerating".

Such a pain that I'm stuck with this. I didn't want to argue with the officer because I figured that if anyone had read the signs properly, he had, but now I wish I had! Guess it doesn't pay to respect authority that much!


There is a HUGE difference from respect and just plain not agreeing.
You could always contact the officer and see if the ...

stay on your original thread at
http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com ... ght=#14279

this one LOCKED

It is a Provincial Offence, not Criminal Code offence, so no criminal record. Upon conviction the offence will go on your driving abstract.

The gradutating licence system allows for young/inexperienced drivers to demonstrate that they are responsible to be on any highway by following extra driving conditions/restrictions. Therefore the government ...

106(2) is for not wearing the seatbelt as prescribed.

However, if the belt is not operational then 106(1) applies

side note, (website I check is down)
106(2) is 2 demerit points
106(1) is 0 demerit points

Given that the officer allegedly didn't see the seatbelt. Is this evidence ? My point would be that evidence requires you to actually see something, not seeing something is not evidence ?

The officer did not see something... "no use of a seatbelt".

So this is considered evidence ? There are so many things he does not see. I would think ...

Wheels are not the end all either....one can see another car drive by another

davec wrote: Given that the officer allegedly didn't see the seatbelt. Is this evidence ? My point would be that evidence requires you to actually see something, not seeing something is not evidence ?

The officer did not see something... "no use of a seatbelt".

nothing in regards to wipers.

Yes, to having lights (front and rear) on during "unfavourable atmospheric conditions"