Ontario Highway Traffic Act

Just a couple of more points.

First, thanks everyone for the positive comments on my site, it's much appreciated.

Second, I've seen this situation before, in Guelph actually. Three cops all taking turns using the same radar gun. Cop 1 uses the gun, pulls someone over, hands the gun to cop 2 before writing the ticket. Cop 2 does the same handing ...

Just to clarify, the two decisions cited in the other thread are not binding as they are not appellate court decisions. And neither is the Maclean's decision (which I've never read).

In R. v. Brown, Cuthbertson does an admirable job of examining the case law and statutory interpretation.

So until a binding appellate court decision, it really ends ...

Sorry to rain on this parade but the MacLeans article is out of date and the JP in the case does not know her recent case law. A lot of paralegals are incorrectly trying to argue the absolute liability angle and it doesn't work as pointed out in this thread:
http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic940.html

A more reasonable approach is going ...

Not getting convicted can happen in three ways:

- the charge is withdrawn
- you are found not guilty
- the charge is stayed.

Stay means stop. Stop all proceedings. You are not found innocent. You are not found guilty. It just stops, though technically it's still on the books. And it stays that way.

It will also depend on how long the light was red. If it was just turning red and traffic started slowing, then yes it could be momentary inattention. If the light was red for a minute then you were driving up to a red light and should have been preparing to stop in which case the coffee excuse is worthless.

Yes you can represent someone or attend on their behalf (sorry R & RI). The only issue is whether you will go "on record" as representing them. What that means is you state your name and say that you are representing your friend. If you don't want to go on record, it becomes a little tricky.

I cover this in detail in Step 2 of my site ("Change the ...

Now!

I would just use the sample disclosure request for the first round. Let's see what they come up with first. Then depending on that, we can devise a strategy. Toronto takes a minimum of 8 weeks to provide disclosure so you've got plenty of time to think about. Just get the first one out there.

Stinchcombe was the landmark case that ruled the element of surprise had no place in a modern trial and the defendant should see the evidence before trial. It established the Crown's disclosure obligations.

Subsequent cases further clarified the Crown's disclosure obligations:. what they must provide, what test they must use, when they must ...

No by-law disclosure and the bilingual defence should kill the first ticket.

RI, check this out Meaning of "designated", ss. 141, 153 and 154

152. For the purposes of sections 141, 153 and 154,

"designated" means designated by the Minister or by any person authorized by him or her to make the designation or designated by by-law of a ...

Thanks for your comments on my site. I like to hear that it helps people!

You only send disclosure to the Crown. It's their responsibility to provide it to you. (They usually forward it to the cop, but let them do that).

Most Crown offices have a binder with every laser and radar manual. Your request to see it is almost never responded to except ...

Thanks for the comments on my site. I appreciate it.

Toronto fax numbers are on my site (under Step 4 Disclosure of course!):

Offence number begining with "4862 999 00 XXXXXXXX-00"
2700 Eglington Avenue West
tel: 416-338-6882
fax: 416-338-7322

Trial should be about one year from offence date, give or take.

Toronto HOV lanes are not bilingual!

Couple of points. Disclosure requests are made to the Crown, not the court. I strongly urge people to request disclosure right away. Some jurisdictions schedule trials quickly, within two months and have trials just a couple of months later. With four months from offence to trial, this doesn't give enough time to request disclosure and follow-up ...

Squishy wrote:And 73 (2), ...is meant for the safety of officers approaching the vehicle, as well as defensive drivers who use other drivers' head movements to predict their behaviour (although that probably wasn't a big consideration when writing that subsection).

I think that part was written in the '80s when everyone had big hair. Where's my diet pepsi?