Ontario Highway Traffic Act

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 ...