Ontario Highway Traffic Act

You should resubmit your 11b and be prepared to solidly argue why the delay should be attributed to the prosecutors office. I personally see nothing wrong with not including a phone number but I would be prepared to argue why you feel it is not necessary.

If you don't receive the disclosure you want, you will also have to argue that why you feel ...

$24 really?

What makes you think that was the same car that was parked to the side of the road?

I wouldn't make assumptions or speculations if I were you; you'll spin your mind in circles. Like everyone else after checking for fatal errors, filing for trial you are best off to wait until you receive your notice of trial and request disclosure. Only then, can ...

By law will be deemed to not be at fault. (Even if you were somehow deemed partially at fault you could challenge it, but I wouldn't worry about it.)

http://www.ibc.ca/en/car_insurance/documents/brochure/on-fault-determination-rules.pdf

15. (1) This section applies with respect to an incident that occurs at an intersection with traffic signals ...

If the officer is not there ask for adjournment due to the fact that you received such late disclosure. What you want to stress is that you feel it is the fault of the crown.

Next time you are pulled over politely acknowledge what the officer said and don't break into a full on confession. He knows a careless charge is going to kill your insurance, but he also knows you will fight it. You should be able to plead this down with the prosecutor considering it didn't result in an accident.

Are you sure you didn't fax the document upside-down? A proper confirm is what you need.

This is all hypothetical and I really would not sweat it right now because you don't know what the officers has in his mind to do. The way I read it is if you are charged under S.159 then s.207.2 states the owner (entity who the plates are registered to) cannot be convicted unless they were also the driver. So one of the things the prosecutor would ...

At Markham I have seen the prosecutor refer you to the officer about a potential charge reduction. The officer is almost always present I wouldn't bank on them not showing. If you don't see them you can always ask the prosecutor if they are present. Ticket Combat presents a few different strategies but there are many ways to approach a case and ...

Technically the owner could be charged and convicted but they would have to prove that the owner was also the driver.

HTA

Approaching, following emergency vehicles
Stop on approach of vehicle with flashing lights or bell or siren sounding
159. (1) The driver of a vehicle, upon the approach of a police department vehicle with its bell or siren ...

What court was this?

Give the following website a good read: http://www.ticketcombat.com

You cant go to court and say someone else was going faster than I was, but I am not sure how fast I was going, but I couldn't have been going that fast. If you plan to fight this and win you either have to find a technicality like the trial taking too long, fatal error, no sign visible, etc OR attack the evidence itself while maintaining with ...

Because you and the officer will offer conflicting testimony the justice has to consider credibility. So you are on the right track by going after the "good visibility" the officer claims to have in your line of questioning. The officers ability to clearly see the male end of your seatbelt at dusk while it was raining might be enough to raise ...

You did not indicate how fast you think you were going but, keep in mind if you admit that you were even 1 km over the limit you were still speeding and can be convicted. File for a court date and request disclosure to see the evidence the officer has against you and go from there. In all likelihood at trial you will be offered a reduced speeding ...