Ontario Highway Traffic Act

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.