Ontario Highway Traffic Act

What requirements are there (acts/statutes/regulations) for police to identify themselves?

I would imagine there is something that deals with their uniform and badge. Anybody know where this is?

And are they required to identify themselves in anyway when asked? If we get pulled over at night, can I ask them to identify themselves before I answer ...

Again, once you get some details then maybe you can figure why it's so much and sort it all out... $30 to $186 does seem a quite bit unreasonable.

Remember that insurance increases have nothing do with demerit points. So even a charge with 0 demerit points could still increase your insurance rate.

You would need to specifically ask your insurance company
(1) will a 30km/h over speeding increase my rates and
(2) will a 15km/h over speeding increase my rates

Don't tell them you got a ticket ...

Yep just go into an MTO and ask and they will tell you yes or no. That's the easiest/best choice.

49 km/h over? ouch!!! you should slow down

Stanton wrote:For a privately laid charge, the Crown still acts as the prosecutor. The person laying the information would simply act as a regular witness in Court (assuming they witnessed the offence).

Thanks for clarifying this point ... have never laid a private charge so not 100% sure how that works.

@Dgupster
What I would do is make another request for disclosure, and say that the officers notes are mostly incomprehensible and that you would like a typed copy of the notes with explanations of the short forms used. Remember that you need to do everything possible now to set yourself up to win at an appeal if you lose at the trial. You might get ...

I see a moderator moved this over to it's own topic... Can a moderator possibly change the Subject/Title of this new thread to something more relevant like "Speeding can't read officers notes"?
Thanks

And here is another great article about your right not to talk to police which addresses the "requirement" to identify yourself and give a statement if you are in an accident:

http://canadian-lawyers.ca/Understand-Y ... ident.html

If you feel that the other driver should have been charged, you could go to police station and ask to speak to a different police officer and see if they are willing to charge the cab driver.

If they still will not do anything, you can request a a meeting with a Justice of the Peace and press Private Charges against the driver. If the JP allows ...

You will have to go to MTO ask for report on what the outstanding fines are.

Maybe some are a mistake but it will take some time to get it all sorted out and you most likely wont' get it sorted out before you need to renew your sticker so you will most likely need to pay them all to get your sticker renewed. Once you get it sorted out you will be ...

Yes good potential for fatal error!

So to get a fatal error to stick, you can NOT take it to trial. If you take it to trial they could amend the ticket and correct it. If you do not go to trial they can not amend it.

Hopefully JP will see the error and scrap the ticket. If not, you can appeal the decision.

You could try to get any statement you made thrown out so it cannot be used as evidence against you and then hope none of their witnesses show up. If the police officer did not see the accident then he cannot testify that you were following too close. Read this:
http://www.trafficticketparalegal.com/s ... s-victory/

@Memo1

You keep going back to the issue of whether officer should have showed you the display of the unit or not. It's a non-issue. They are not required to, and whether they showed it to somebody else or not does not help your case in anyway.

Also, do NOT bring up the issue of the speed about the officer saying it was 84 not 80 ... this could ...

The prosecution has to prove their case by showing that certain "elements" are true beyond a reasonable doubt.

They prove these elements mostly with the use of a witness (usually the police officer).

You get to then cross examine the witness, and this is where you want to bring in as much reasonable doubt as possible.

So the cross examination is ...

@Radar Identified - Again some good points!!

You are correct, that there might be times when you do want to testify and do want to give your side of the story (like defense of necessity), so me using strong language like "never" might be better worded as "mostly never". I did mention that with speeding, explaining your side of the story would ...