Search found 556 matches

This is a Criminal Code Matter.

But since you weren't charged, I think it's safe to hear layman's opinions.

Your rights were violated but it is a permissible violation. If an officer has reasonable and probable grounds (like an occupant handing over 2 roaches or the strong smell of drugs confirmed by a K9) that they believe they may find drugs ...

Though legal, I don't really see the wisdom in passing with a double solid yellow even with clear visibility in that most other drivers driving at the speed limit do not expect to be overtaken and that could cause an issue in itself.

Leave it to lawyers to confuse everyone, now we need a lawyer to decipher if we need a lawyer.
The POA says your agent has to be "licensed" by the law society. The Law Society bylaw certainly does authorize a layperson under certain circumstances to act as a representative. The way I read it, it could be construed that the powers granted to a ...

Super interesting (for me anyway) it's not too often you see a major hole in the law like this. So in theory anyone facing this charge should be able to successfully appeal if convicted even if they were driving a truck that requires a heavy truck license.

Here's something I always wondered about:

I know a commercial truck in most instances is one above 4500 kg but that does not necessarily mean it's a heavy because you can drive any truck up to 11000 kg with a G license.

The question is how is a HEAVY truck defined in relation to a posted NO HEAVY TRUCKS sign on certain streets? Does it only refer ...

There are a few points I wish to state.

In the case of R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615, it is stated that "The primary aim of check stop programs, which result in the arbitrary detention of motorists, is to check for sobriety, licences, ownership, insurance and the mechanical fitness of cars"

I do not see how a licence plate would fit any ...

It's one thing to try to raise reasonable doubt through a good cross-examination of the officers testimony, but quite another to take the stand with the intention of telling a bold-faced lie. If you can't tell the truth in your testimony then don't testify, I would try and find another way.

Though it happened in a car this is not an HTA issue you could of had the same charge walking on the sidewalk with a cup.

Bottom line is go to trial and tell your story. Why do you think that the officers believed you had alcohol in the cups if they were empty? A disclosure request will give you additional information.

If you park illegally in Toronto on any major street during rush hour it is almost certain.

Here's the answer to my own question...

178. (1) An order of discharge does not release the bankrupt from
(a) any fine, penalty, restitution order or other order similar in nature to a fine, penalty or restitution order, imposed by a court in respect of an offence, or any debt arising out of a recognizance or bail;

Will being declared bankrupt help?

In Canada all cases are prosecuted by either the Federal or Provincial Crown by a delegate of the respective Attorney General. Serious cases (criminal, complex civil cases, etc.) are handled by a Crown Attorney (lawyer), while professionals (who not necessarily lawyers) who deal exclusively with provincial offences (like the HTA) are referred to as ...

Next time you get pulled over don't try to explain anything to the officer as you might have incriminated yourself.

Start by requesting a trial date indicate you want to challenge the officers evidence at trial, when you get the date, ask for disclosure to see what the evidence against you is and post it here.

Take your full G test in September ...

The only expert is you after this goes down.

The paralegals are right to warn you that your ticket will be amended to the original speed and all the ramifications that come with that.

In the face of such a huge risk for relatively little reward, can you stomach taking a chance to go to court and challenge the officers overall credibility on if ...

Whatever you do, do not agree. Go to court and argue against the adjournment saying that you are ready to proceed and that if the prosecutor is not then the charge should be dismissed or withdrawn.

I would scan and post it to get some opinions on if it is sloppy penmanship or a true error.

If it is what you say it is, it should be quashed if you force the fatal error (search the forums on how to do this). If you show up in court it can be corrected.

Your command of English in its written form seems adequate I would expect that you can understand verbal English as well so why the interpreter?

If all you care about is demerit points go for early resolution and offer to plead guilty to a reduced charge.

This is not really an HTA issue (actually a lot more serious) but if you want to make a complaint about the destruction of evidence:

https://www.oiprd.on.ca/CMS/Complaints.aspx

Keep in mind it may well have been accidental.

At this point you are speculating. I would wait to see disclosure before you plan a trial strategy. From what you said a defense of necessity will not work and the speed of the Jeep is irrelevant. If the officer really plans not attend court (which i sincerely doubt) then he may not have written any notes (which I also doubt). If you receive good ...

If you are going after this only because of principle of the JP not appearing impartial then I think you might be able to score a new trial but like you said not necessarily a better outcome. The key getting a new trial would be to find caselaw on canlii citing the Charter s. 11 (d) and making a persuasive argument (not as easy as it sounds) that ...

It is VERY difficult to get a new trial after pleading guilty and I would not expect to win. Remember he asked you if it was voluntary to which you said yes.
Not getting an adjournment for incomplete disclosure is a very real possibility that you should have been prepared for, if you saw that as your get out of jail free card then you should have ...

The knocked down sign allows parking to the right of it. There is another sign closer to the stop sign, maybe the officer was going by that. Did anyone else get a ticket? Either way with the photo evidence and a story saying you parked to the right of the sign and it was visible when you parked, I believe you should be able to create enough ...

MTO cases are a bit different they usually have their own prosecutor that does all of their cases on one day. You usually are asked to fax/write the MTO office directly for disclosure and they will mail it to you. When you go to court on Friday if the officer is there ask for an adjournment to the fault of the Prosecutor. Be prepared to illustrate ...

I really do think you will be found guilty if you take this approach. It is not you against the officer, it is you against the prosecutor. The prosecutor will establish that the officer was given a card that did not identify that either you or that vehicle and that is all they need to convict. As for the policy number being the same that would be ...

I personally would wait until you have more information (the report and medical prognosis). I would check your policy to see what you are entitled to and have a discussion with claims department about making a claim for the car and lost income while your wife recovers. Any company that wants to keep your business will provide you with a rental car ...

Stanton wrote:Looking at the street view pictures it appears the median extends well beyond Edgar Street. It certainly appears that you would have made a u-turn to access the street.

Agreed. Making that argument in court with a straight face is the real challenge.

It could be read that way Stanton but I do not think (b) will apply because the insurance slip most likely does not show the the operators name in this case.

I believe (b) is intended to cover fleets with blanket policies where the vehicle is not named. They usually read as: Any vehicle owned or operated by employees of X.

I think that you will be believed that it was an honest mistake on the part of your relative that the slips got mixed up that may help when asking for a lower fine, but since this an absolute liability offence if you go to trial and you will certainly be found guilty because the ticket was correctly written to you. The prosecutor will correctly say ...

As we've stated above, random stops are allowed as per the Supreme Court. Police do NOT require grounds to believe an offence has occurred to stop a vehicle and check documentation.

Can you please provide me with a source(s) or case law indicating that Police do NOT require reasonable or probable grounds to search and detain?

As far as I'm ...

I think I saw this on Dexter.