Search found 1722 matches

Has there been a series of injuries and fatalities in school zones recently that has prompted the cameras? I doubt it!

It's all about income generation... tax the people until they revolt!

What is the charge (wording and section number)?

What is different from your dashcam video and their video?

If you get a new G1 and G2 it will still be attached to you (whether or not the number is changed) and they will still know about the old one that expired.

35 over is 4 points and MAY be an automatic license suspension for a G2 driver (others can confirm).

If you are considering a plea deal, then you would want it dropped to 29 over which is 3 ...

It is the wrong charge if he was charged for speeding in a 70 zone when it was actually an 80 zone.

And just a reminder that even a Speeding 7-over charge (which is 0 demerits) is still considered a MINOR offence by insurance company and can cause your insurance to go up.

Anyways, get disclosure notes and post them and we can advise further.

My understanding is that they can amend the speed you were travelling but not the "in a posted zone" part. Of course I could be wrong about that, but even if not fatal, it is still the incorrect charge.

Anyways, most important thing you can do is NOT tell the prosecutor there is an error. If you tell them, then they can fix it. Don't tell them ...

The officers notes say TWICE that he saw you not wearing your seatbelt BEFORE you pulled into parking lot.

When it is your word against the officers word, they will always believe the officer over you, unless you have other witnesses that can testify that you had it on.

Remember that they are not charged for the place where they are pulled over, but wherever the officer saw them speeding. Is there a 70 zone before the 80 zone where the officer could have seen them speeding?

Anyways if it is an 80 zone, then the charge is incorrect and it should be withdrawn. But your friend will need proof of it being an 80 zone ...

Do you have a copy of the officers notes? Can you scan and post them for us to read (black out any personal/officer info).

What is the exact charge on the ticket (wording and section number).

They do not need video evidence. They just need the officer to testify that he saw you with the seat belt off.

However if they are saying that there ...

No you wont get it dismissed just by saying he did not write down second test time. Since he is going to testify that he did it, even though he did not write it down, you need to find some case laws on that issue to help you and figure out how to cross-exmine him on this issue.
Start reading around paragraph 69 "usual practice" of Durham (Regional ...

Early Resolution is a specific date/time for you to meet with the prosecutor instead of on the trial date.

If you just set a trial date instead, then you will meet with the prosecutor before trial starts on that day.

In my opinion, early resolution (in most cases) is a waste of time. In your case they may not even have disclosure yet at early resolution so they would not be in a position to drop it if the officers notes do not support the charge. So I would not choose option 2 if it was me.

So you need to get disclosure (copy of officers notes) before you can decide how to fight it, because we don't really know the reason the officer gave you the Careless Driving charge until we read her notes.

So plead Not Guilty and request a trial with the officer present. Once you get your notice of trial, ask for disclosure (copy of officers ...

Has anybody done a Section 7 charter argument for lack of disclosure?

I have found examples of 11b applications, but have not found any for section 7.

I can of course use the 11b as a guide, but if anybody can share a section 7 application that would be great.

Thanks

You do not need to hire anybody to meet with the prosecutor... it is usually a waste of money in my opinion. You are just going to basically meet with them and try and convince them to drop it. If they are in a good mood they might. They might not though, but more likely might offer to drop one if you plead guilty to the other. They also may not ...

I would be concerned with section 13.1 of the CAIA with regards to an "invalid insurance card".

So say you put your new card in the vehicle but it is not valid yet, and your old one is still valid. Or the new one becomes valid, but your old one is still in the car and it is invalid now. In theory you can get a $10,000 fine for this!

Possession ...

Of course common sense and a reasonable person would tell you that having a valid insurance card along with one that has expired, should not be a crime but our Canadian un-Justice system does not work on common sense or reason!

What is the exact charge (the wording and section number and Act) that your friend was charged with?

What specifically are the two charges that you were charged with (with section numbers)?

All tickets are fightable... but these ones are next to impossible to beat, unless the officer does not show up (which is very very rare).

However it is always worthwhile to plead not guilty, request a trial, and request disclosure and then show up on the trial date because as a worst case, you can probably get the fine reduced on both of them.

It could prove much more costly for you. Out of court, the set fine of $400 applies. However, once you go in to court, the set fine no longer applies but rather the statutory fine. In your case, the range is $300 to $1000. Rarely, will they go lower than the set fine. Rather, on a first offence, some JPs will go as high as $600 (but sometimes more ...

As far as I am aware, you have nothing to lose by pleading not guilty and going to trial and being found guilty by the JP. Conviction and fine should be the same either way.

If the prosecutor offers you a plea deal ahead of time for a reduced fine if you plead guilty, then if you plead not guilty and lose you would be charged full fine intead of ...

made me laugh too

You need to go into provincial offences office and tell them you asked for early resolution and never got anything in the mail and ask for a RE-OPENING to set new trial date.

Usually you would wait to get your Notice of Trial before you request disclosure. And then you should request the disclosure at least 6 weeks before the trial. As long as you requested the disclosure 6 weeks in advance then they will not count it against you. If your Notice of Trial came less than 6 weeks before the trial date, then they will not ...

Just remember that DEMERIT points have nothing to do with INSURANCE rates. You can get a 0 demerit point ticket and your insurance can still go up. Insurance does not look at demerit points. For example, Insurance sees speeding anywhere 1 over to 49 over as a MINOR convicting which can cause a small increase, even though 1-15 over is 0 demerits, 16 ...

You need to get the disclosure first (officers notes) and read them before you can decide how to fight it, but the suggestions you made above are probably not good defences at all.

Mispelled name does not matter.

Yes

IMPORTANT: At no time should your friend ever admit to disobeying the stop sign, to either the prosecutor or the officer. If they ask your friend this question, your friend should answer "I have no comment about that at this time." The only exception is if your friend takes the witness stand under oath (in this case they WOULD have to answer all ...

It's a Justice of the Peace decision which means it is NOT binding on any other Justice of the Peace.

Most ONCJ level cases are Justice of the Peace.

Sometimes you will come across an ONCJ level case that is an appeal with a Judge. These cases ARE binding on all Justice of the Piece.

Milgarded wrote:Yet I just read case law that states the author of radar manuals do not need to be present if references are made from said manual.

Do you remember which case law this was?

Representing self, family, friend or neighbor

LAW SOCIETY ACT
Not practicing law or providing legal services
1. (8) For the purposes of this Act, the following persons shall be deemed not to be practising law or providing legal services: 3. An individual who is acting on his or her own behalf, whether in relation to a document, a proceeding or ...