Ontario Highway Traffic Act

R. v. Pizzurro: the Crown does not need to prove the cell phone was capable of receiving or transmitting in order to convict him under S. 78.1(1)
R. v. Gill: the defence argued that the device could have been a toy...From the Judge "people do not normally talk to themselves with an object held to their ear. This would draw in this Court's ...

It is never too late to ask for disclosure. The issue becomes if the JP will let you adjourn it to review or not. You should still have lots of time if they send the disclosure very soon.
If convicted at 20 over at trial the fine would be $90+ =$115

"As always, anything you say can and will be used against you".
Not true...if it were true there would be no need for voir dires...

It is $2,000 or personal injury...then you must report it...
If there is no damage, as in your scenario, no obligation to report

That inspection was a level 1, which means it was done by a certified MTO inspector (be they actually MTO or Police) A level 1 is a full inspection where they look at everything from front to back including going under the cmv...During this inspection, the inspector found the 4 defects which they would have noted on the commercial vehicle ...

Where does it say they were all withdrawn because they didn't have the evidence to prove them?

You don't need to have a conviction to get cvor points...just having a defect is enough...it does not need to have a conviction associated to it, the defect just has to exist.

If it timed out, it was a laser, not radar...radar does not time out and blank the info...

The officer will produce a copy of the ownership which will show the registered gross weight. That weight, as you say is 8,000Kg, therefore, you are well over the 5 ton rule...The ownership will also have an empty weight on it: is that over 3,000 tons?

Disclosure is an ongoing process where the defendant must take an active role. If you wait until court to ask for a typed written break down of the officers notes, the Jusitce of the Peace will question you as to what efforts you made to get a typed version of the notes...at trial, the JP may, or may not, adjourn the matter...The notes are not that ...

Even if you don't mention it to the prosecutor, ever, and this goes to trial, the prosecutor can ask to amend the charge. You will be given a chance to object to it but the prosecutor will have a very good chance at getting the amendment. The evidence will show exactly what happened and the amendment is to another subsection within the main section ...

If you were convicted of Follow too Closely, it is 4 points, not 2...
And if you fight this ticket, they will bump the speed back up to 35 over, which will be 4 more points if convicted...

"He pulled me over, but was very unclear about the reasons" So...you had no Idea why the cop pulled you over? Remember that part where you said "just barely got in front of the car I was passing to avoid a head on collision" I wonder if that had anything to do with it...

Given the scenario as posted by the OP, there is no chance of being convicted for careless drivng...Speed alone does not constitute careless driving, and if the weather was as he sated, there is no reasonable prospect of conviction...

Post from 27 Jul 2010:
follow too close is not an included offence in careless. It's just often the offence that people plea to when charged with careless. However, you can not be convicted of follow too close at a trial for careless, or vice versa.
_________________
http://www.boryslaw.ca
NOTHING I SAY ON HERE IS LEGAL ADVICE.

Petawawa has no by-law allowing atv's to run on their roadways...so I would agree with you, you are screwed...Have you approached your town counsel to see if they would consider an atv by-law?