Search found 256 matches

I haven't read the sections that apply. Post the exact provision and we can tell you what we think it says.

Always remember though, what you read on line is opinion; not fact.

Don't go buying or building something just because someone online told you it was okay.

So the new law also prohibits a teenage driver from having more than one other teenager in the car. This is pathetic. A 19 year old can vote and fight in wars, but he cannot have more than one other teenager in his car. Ha!

Whatever is legal or illegal can be found hre.

Read every regulation to be sure. Cut and paste the entire address below into your address bar.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/Browse?queryText=dDocName+%3Cmatches%3E+%60ELAWS_STATUTES_*_e%60+%3CAND%3E+%28xRegUnderAct+%3Cstarts%3E+%60H%60%29&resultCount=200&sortField=dDocTitle&sortOrder=ASC&startIndex=1 ...

The kid had two speeding tickets and was later killed drinking and driving. If he had lost his licences, the chances are he would still have driven as it doesn't sound like he had much respect for laws.

Some people think their is a "legal limit" of .08. They are incorrect. There is no such think as a legal limit. You can be charged for impaired ...

Actually, it's my mistake. I just re-read the thread. You did say damage to the car, no injuries. Sorry.

The cop is clueless, or gave you a major break. The turn offence doesn't apply. You crossed into another lane, even though it has no lines. An accident occurred. In my opinion he had to charge you with careless driving, but he didn't ...

You said there was no accident i.e., damage or injury?

The 6 month limitation period can be tricky. If you were issued a certificate of offence under Part I of the POA, it must be served upon the accused within 30 days.

If one makes the cop or court aware any errors after 30 days, but within 6 months, it appears the cop can simply reissue the ticket with corrections under Part III of the POA, but he ...

You just want to win. Get the fail to report of his record, cancel the fine, get your $500 back from the counsel who mispresented you, and not have to pay the driver any damages since he caused the accident.

read this site.

www.ticketcombat.com/

Try the Supreme Court of Canada for caselaw with respect to lanes.

When did you get the ticket?

Have you sent in the notice to defend yet?

I don't think the charge will stick as it doesn't apply, in my view, as you also mentioned.

This is not a case involving turning. I think he may've had to charge you with careless driving in such a case ...

Interesting case. Keep searching case law and you might find something to help you.

So, you're traveling on a road with no centre line and the cop claims you went into the oncoming lane of traffic while rounding a bend in the roadway and caused a collison?

If so, then you're right, the section yo were charged under does not apply.

Do you know ...

The other major problem with s. 172 is that it's too vague in some regards.

The words used are completely subjective and essentially arbitrary, and provided no guidance to allow courts to reasonably interpret the words or devise a test that achieved the legislative objective. Some terms are so open-ended that it failed to delineate with sufficient ...

I understand. But here's the thing with s. 172.

I called three different OPP and three different local cops to see what type of offence s. 172 is. They ALL claim it's an absolute liability offence.

The court claims it's a strict liability offence.

The reason why the cops impound cars on the spot is because they claim it's an absolute ...

Fight it.

A stop sign is not a traffic signaling device.

Do not inform the police of the error on the ticket.

If you are correct that there is no stop sign, go take pictures of the traffic lights at this location. Be sure the camera posts a date on the picture.


Then, do not respond to the ticket at all. Fight it on appeal that the ticket ...

Tell us what happened to you?

I will guess that the answer is no. You would have to read the entire Act, all the regulations, find case law with other examples, and/or use a dictionary definition to find the correct answer, though.

I stand by the defence that only the Lieutenant Governor in Council (LGIC) can mke regualtions under s. 144. The Crown will argue the LGIC is limited to making regulations listed in s. 144. Since it does not include setting the set fines, the set fines are valid.

The Chief justice created the set fines, not the LGIC.

You can argue this point ...

If the set fine amount is incorrect it is a fatal error. I'm not sure what the set fine is. You an check on the link below. Look under the HTA section to see if the set fine he entered is correct.

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/ocj/en/setfines/one/index.htm

The total payable is higher because it includes a surcharge and court costs..

In what ...

What error is on the ticket?

What date do you have to repsond by?

What exactly happened to you to be charged?

In short, if there is a fatal error on the ticket and you do not reply, the justice cannot fix it and no fine can be entered.

If you contract the crown the crown can contract the cop and reissue you a new and proper ticket provided its ...

Each of the following is an separate offences under the stunt definition. The court claims its a strict liability offence, meaning you have a due diligence defence.

Para. 8 uses the same wording as careless driving on a road, on a sidewalk or on a snow machine. This is a mens rea offence under s. 130 of the HTA for a vehicle, under the TO ...

The US only has two class of offences, strict and mens rea , while Canada has three, strict , absolute and mens rea .

A term of imprisonment can be attached to a strict liability offence. The US offfences are strict liability with attached prison time, while in Canada speeding is an absolute liability offence where a term of imprisonment attached ...

In my view, its too late to file an appeal over the conviction. You must file
an application for certiorari. In this application you are going to seek the $500 back from the agent who misrepresented you plus you want the fine struck out.

Therefore, in the claim for damages against you, even if your found at fault for 50% of the accident, (which ...

No, the comment of mine that you quoted above is not right. After carefully reviewing the stuff you posted, you son was on the sidewalk, the driver is in the wrong, your son did not have to remain or report, and the driver assaulted your son when he grabbed him. He had no right to touch your son at all.

As for the by-law, your son was allowed to ...

Haha!

I'm not the submissive type.

This is the only s. 172 case I've seen posted. Apparantly there are thousands of them yet they refuse to post them. I wonder why...

After declaring s. 172 to be a strict liability offence, the justice than failed to inquiry whether or not the driver had an excuse to be speeding, i.e., the due diligence defence, before imposing his punishment.

I just re-read this case and need to make a crrection to my comment above because of Ms. Carter's statement:

MS. CARTER: I believe it ...

Any word from the crown or court regarding your appeal?

Ahh yes. My bad. It's the potential for severe penalties that makes it Strict.

But this seems to fly in the face of the impoundment rules. How can a driver defend himself using a due diligence argument on the side of the road? Only the court can rule on such a defense, not an officer. It seems to me that this is the core problem with 172. To be ...

Each of the following is an separate offences under the stunt definition. The court claims its a strict liability offence, meaning you have a due diligence defence.

How can one have a due diligence excuse for driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk? Ha!

How can one have a due diligence excuse for driving a motor vehicle while the ...

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... cj507.html

THE COURT: "I've got to tell you, that client should be here to see all of this careful and able work."

Hahahaha!

What a disgrace.

Bottomline; it would save eveyone money and time if cops would just stop laying stupid tickets.

Section 84 provides more evidence that when the Act articulates the "is guilty" or "are guilty" words ha it is an absolute liability offence.

Section 84 is an absolute liability offence and s. 5 clearly indicates this fact.

Offence if wheel detaches from commercial motor vehicle

84.1 (1) Where a wheel becomes detached from a commercial motor ...