Speeding Ticket With Fatal Error?

Received a speeding ticket in a construction zone.

Officer reduced the ticket to $52.50 doing 15km/h over the posted.

ticket shows the following:

Did commit the offence of: Speeding, 65km/hr in a 50 km/hr zone, construction zone

contrary to: (this has been left blank)

section: 128

I've read some threads on this forum and some other sites and I take it that this is a fatal error (not stipulating which act is being followed)

I've chosen to follow an option not listed on the ticket...which is sit back and do nothing.

Assuming the officer has not corrected his version of the ticket and they notice this error prior to processing and don't end up processing it, will I get any type of notice letting me know I'm out in the clear?

also, if they do process the ticket, what are my next steps?

don't believe that is a fatal, but someone with a bit more experience will be along to confirm or deny

but fingers crossed, good luck,

it does mention section 28...

I thought it was fatal.

I've read that even if the officer states HTA - it is not correct. It should always be spelt out at highway traffic act.

As of right now, I could be looking at section 128 of the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Ontario Assessment Act, could be anything.

Except that it is unlikely to list Speeding in Section 128 of the Income Tax Act.

I completely understand it wouldn't show speeding, but how many acts is one to explore until they find the right one?

okay, but now if this isn't a fatal error, and my 15 days are up - I'm on day 17....what should I do?

To me, it should be a fatal error. It should be obvious it's HTA (which is often abbreviated exactly like that on tickets), but a ticket must specify in sufficient detail the offence that was (alleged to have been) committed. For people who are familiar with the system, that's easy. But for someone who may be unfamiliar with the system or Ontario's laws, how is that person supposed to prepare a defence?

Zatota wrote:To me, it should be a fatal error. It should be obvious it's HTA (which is often abbreviated exactly like that on tickets), but a ticket must specify in sufficient detail the offence that was (alleged to have been) committed. For people who are familiar with the system, that's easy. But for someone who may be unfamiliar with the system or Ontario's laws, how is that person supposed to prepare a defence?

and this is also true

It is acceptable for them to put HTA instead of Highway Traffic Act.

My opinion on them leaving it blank means that you were prejudiced as you are not a lawyer and do not know what act to look in. Two things will happen since you are past the 15 day...

(1) JP will look at ticket and see the error and quash and ticket will go away.

OR

(2) JP will look at ticket and not see any error and find you guilty.

If #2 happens, then you will get conviction notice in the mail. If you have not heard anything in a month you should call provincial offences office and check on status. Anyways, if you are found guilty then you want to APPEAL the decision within 30 days of finding out about it. Make sure you do an APPEAL and not a RE-OPENING. You will have to pay the fine in order to file the appeal, but will get the money back when you win.

At the appeal, you bring your copy of the ticket and tell the Judge the following:

- The CONTRARY TO section is blank on my ticket and therefore it should have been quashed by the Justice of the Peace as I have no idea what Act I violated.

Since you are past the 15 days to respond, this is the ONLY defence you have left. Let us know what happens.

this is exactly the how the scenario was playing out in my head

i'll come back and keep this post updated with play by play.

i'll put it in my calendar to call about the ticket 30 days from the day I received it (feb 17), or should I call in 30 days from the expiry of the 15 days (therefore, 45 days from feb 17 - day I received the ticket)

You can call 30 days from the ticket date and if they don't know the status, then call back every couple weeks thereafter until they can tell you what happened.

called in on friday march 24th at 4pm (slightly more than 30 days since receiving my ticket).

lady said that the computer shows 'in progress/process'

time to keep waiting

Is it possible the officer may have amended his copy and the JP accepted it ? Maybe JP ruled it would prejudice your defence ? Interested to know what happens.

Nanuk wrote:Is it possible the officer may have amended his copy and the JP accepted it ? Maybe JP ruled it would prejudice your defence ? Interested to know what happens.

Years ago I saw it quashed for a ticket written to a friend citing the HTA without a section number. It would make sense to me that just a section number without the name of the act would result in the same thing.

Zatota wrote:

Nanuk wrote:Is it possible the officer may have amended his copy and the JP accepted it ? Maybe JP ruled it would prejudice your defence ? Interested to know what happens.

I'm not aware of any case law, but, according to my understanding of the POA, that's not an option. If subsection 9(1) or section 9.1 applies, the JP examines the Certificate of Offence, not the officer's copy. The officer can change his or her copy all he or she wants, but that won't change the Certificate of Offence that was filed.

You should read this year's OCA decision in Wadood. The court expressly stated that an officer can amend the Certificate of Offence before filing it.

As for OP's question of whether failing to cite the legislation is fatal, the case law is actually a bit conflicted on that. The battle is always whether any defect impacts the jurisdiction of the court or whether the item is just surplusage.

While a missing section number is no longer considered fatal (so long as the description of the offence is set out), an incorrect section number is generally considered to be fatal (if it conflicts with the offence description). That's just an example of how technical some of these things can be.

However, in my view, the missing legislation title IS fatal because it brings the jurisdiction of the POA court in to question. After all, it is critical that all parties know precisely what law must be applied and whether a provincial offences court even has jurisdiction to interpret that legislation. So, in my view, a missing legislation should be considered fatal. I'm fairly confident that appeal courts would agree with me on that.