Search found 569 matches

Generally, witnesses who come from out of town are reimbursed for travel expenses. You can contact the courts and inquire about this.

Unfortunately, you can not give the prosecutor's office a generic list; you have to be specific. Generally for speeding you can only ask for the officer's notes and a copy of the speed measuring device's manual: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic2959.html

Prosecutor's office can ignore long-winded requests and force defendants to ...

Normally the remedy for 'disclosure not received' is not a stay; the remedy is that you get disclosure.

What items did you put in your disclosure request? What has the prosecution given you so far?

You need to re-read highwaystar's post. The fine is incorrect, so even if the officer wrote "Speeding - construction Zone - workers Present" it would still get quashed.

I would maybe wait for other members to chime in here and confirm the lack of 'Workers Present' constitutes a fatal error.

If the JP fails to quash it, you would have to appeal it. You can find more information here: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic5412.html#p30086

Form: http://www.niagararegion.ca/living/provincial-offences/pdf ...

This appears to be a fatal error. You'll have to go through London v. Young procedure and force a fatal error by not showing: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p33_e.htm#BK10

If you show up to court, they will amend any & all issues on the ticket it in front of you: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english ...

What did you receive in the disclosure package?

You shouldn't open several threads for the same topic, please read this: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic2871.html

2) Running a driver's abstract at every renewal costs the insurance company money; if they've run your abstract for the past couple of years and haven't gotten anything... then it's less likely they'll spend more money ...

The 172/128 discretion has nothing to do with your past history; most Ontario LEO have a directive to charge under 172 for +50km/hr; even if they wanted to charge under 128, they simply can not.

If you or your representative take this charge to trial and lose, you'll most likely face the minimum $2000 fine.

Lets say you convince the courts that there were no workers present. The courts will simply amend the fine in front of you.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p33_e.htm#BK50[quote]Amendment of information or certificate
34. (1) The court may, at any stage of the proceeding, amend the information or certificate as ...

Was the enforcement point on Shoreham & Murray Ross Pkwy? I noticed them on Waze around ~11AM today.

Prosecutor will drop the insurance card if you bring evidence you were insured at the time of the offence. In a plea-deal you're guaranteed to get a no-point amendment for the speeding charge.

You should always request trial; wait for notice of ...

Yes, it's possible the JP will receive a corrected/modified version of the ticket. It's of paramount importance you keep your version of the ticket intact.

Ontario JPs are very familiar with London v. Young and make sure the face of the ticket is proper/regular prior to convicting defaulters. But they're human, and will make mistakes... which is ...

I would schedule a trial date rather than plea to a lesser charge; give the witness an opportunity to show. In a lot of these collision related trials, for w/e reason witnesses tend not to show up.

If the witness doesn't show, then there is no case and the charge gets withdrawn.

Don't forget to request disclosure.

The problem in Ontario is that the courts do not recognize traffic speeds nor design limits. Speeding is an absolute liability offence; they're only concerned with whether you went over the speed limit, and by how much... the why? is irrelevant.

It doesn't appear you meet the necessity defence. The problem with your safety decision is that you ...

R. v. Dixon, [1998] 1 SCR 244 - Supreme Court of Canada 55 It must be remembered that defence counsel is not entitled to assume at any point that all relevant information has been disclosed to the defence. Just as the Crown's disclosure obligations are ongoing, and persist throughout the trial process, so too does defence counsel's obligation to ...

Relevant case-law states that the requirement for testing times is up to the presiding trial justice (justice of peace). So a JP can be satisfied that the officer tested the device before and after his shift without testing times.

You can read more about testing times here: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic1909-15.html#p30553

You can ...

Your adjournment only accounts for a one month delay. I don't think you understand how 11b time calculations are done, you should review R. v. Andrade: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2011/2011oncj470/2011oncj470.html

From what you described the officer has another opportunity to appear for your next trial. Just like how you requested an ...

Rough Timeline

Received Ticket: Nov 2013
1st Trial: Aug 2014
2nd Trial: Sep 2014
3rd Trial: ????

You're at-fault for the time between the 2nd and 1st trial. But the rest is the crown's fault. I would consider an 11b application.

Prosecutor will always plea-bargain in order to avoid a lengthy trial.

I would try calling the residents at 38 Trefann St: http://www.canada411.ca/res/4165198410/G-Nigh/205767067.html

Tell them you received a ticket in front on their property, and if they know what happened.

To receive this type of ticket, the property owner would have contacted parking enforcement. So if you can't get information from the city, you ...

No, I would not be worried about incarceration. If you're getting representation, they will most likely plea-bargain the charge from S172 to +49km/h under S128 of the HTA.

Again, take a look at the fault determination rules. It seems that if a collision does occur you will not be found at-fault. Having said that, you should exercise a lot of caution when using the centre lane.

Vehicles should never block intersections/driveways/entrances/exits, especially because you never know when emergency vehicles need to enter ...

What's the name of the side street? Maybe using Streetview will help us better visualize this intersection.

You can also look at fault determination rules and see if your scenario is there: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/e ... 0668_e.htm

Unfortunately, those are not fatal errors: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic1965.html

Request disclosure: officer's notes & copy of the speed measuring device's manual: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic1965.html

He's asking you irrelevant questions, so you might as well answer those in the hopes he might let you off with a warning. Although it's always advisable not to talk to police; because they're human and w/e you say can be misinterpreted in a court of law; in this case he already has all the essential elements to get a conviction; he already knows ...

Keep in mind that case-law states that the requirement for testing times is up to the presiding trial justice (justice of peace). So a JP can be satisfied that the officer tested the device before and after his shift without testing times.

You can read more about testing times here: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic1909-15.html#p30553 ...

I do not have collision on my truck so in others words I guess I'm pretty screwed in this case? Damages for the other parties are still covered under your insurance policy up to your max. liability (usually $1 million); Collision coverage is only for your truck. So if you get into an at-fault accident, your insurance company will not repair your ...

That $172 is only going to increase, it'll be in your best interest to pay it out. There will be an arrest warrant for you in Quebec. So if law enforcement run your id or driver's license you'll be arrested, taken to jail and put in front of a french judge... at which point you'll either pay the fine + admin charges or setup a payment program ...

I was looking at the strategies on ticketcombat.com and amateurishly concluded that my best defence is the due diligence approach. Physically drained + the surprise of seeing a friend + the surprise of the pool offering + the known proximity of his house led me to just get in my car and drive. That combined with my clean record in my 8 years prior ...

Unfortunately, it's going to be your word against his at this point... it may ultimately be 50/50 or 100% your fault.

Fault determination rules suggests both drivers can be at fault here. The other driver when facing an amber light must come to a complete stop. From your observation the vehicle came to a complete stop. The vehicle made a right ...