Hi all, I got ticket this morning to disobey the Sign U turn. I was going down an airport road and took a U turn right before the Bresler drive and the undercovered officer pulled me over and gave $110 ticket. He put 09 in year field on the ticket. Is that for the plate# or the vehicle year? If it for vehicle, then it is wrong. I was reading through different forums and ticketcombat.com and learned that if there is a fatal error on the ticket, the case will be dismissed. What are my options to fight and defend the case? Thanks in advance for help
Hi all,
I got ticket this morning to disobey the Sign U turn. I was going down an airport road and took a U turn right before the Bresler drive and the undercovered officer pulled me over and gave $110 ticket. He put 09 in year field on the ticket. Is that for the plate# or the vehicle year? If it for vehicle, then it is wrong. I was reading through different forums and ticketcombat.com and learned that if there is a fatal error on the ticket, the case will be dismissed. What are my options to fight and defend the case?
Do I have to go to the same location as on the ticket or file a trial in any other location? Also, how are the chances of dismissal as I really don't want to pay fine and loose 2 demerit points. I am really worried about my insurance rate.
Do I have to go to the same location as on the ticket or file a trial in any other location? Also, how are the chances of dismissal as I really don't want to pay fine and loose 2 demerit points. I am really worried about my insurance rate.
Your best bet is to go through the process and see what technicalities are out there. That could include 11b, lack of disclosure, the cop not showing up etc etc etc. Check out the Ticket Combat site as it has a great primer. I wish I could lose demerits every time I get ticketed :D Actually you gather the demerits until you get 9 in a period of 2 years and that wins you an interview in which you justify why you should keep your licence. That has nothing to do with your insurance rates. Unless you get nailed for something SERIOUS like going 49+km/h over the limit, careless driving, drunk driving, the insurance companies treat all convictions the same, regardless of the demerit points. That's why it usually doesn't pay off to accept a lesser charge (even if it doesn't carry demerits) after going through the trouble of showing up in court. And yes it is the location noted on the ticket. You can't have your Toronto West case heard in Sudbury.
Your best bet is to go through the process and see what technicalities are out there. That could include 11b, lack of disclosure, the cop not showing up etc etc etc. Check out the Ticket Combat site as it has a great primer.
I wish I could lose demerits every time I get ticketed Actually you gather the demerits until you get 9 in a period of 2 years and that wins you an interview in which you justify why you should keep your licence. That has nothing to do with your insurance rates.
Unless you get nailed for something SERIOUS like going 49+km/h over the limit, careless driving, drunk driving, the insurance companies treat all convictions the same, regardless of the demerit points. That's why it usually doesn't pay off to accept a lesser charge (even if it doesn't carry demerits) after going through the trouble of showing up in court.
And yes it is the location noted on the ticket. You can't have your Toronto West case heard in Sudbury.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
I am posting an image to show exactly what happened. The cop was looking in the door mirror waiting 25meters ahead of me and as soon as I made a Turn and entered in the side street, he made a U turn and caught me on the side street. Looking at the image and the details of what happened, wht are my options?
I am posting an image to show exactly what happened.
The cop was looking in the door mirror waiting 25meters ahead of me and as soon as I made a Turn and entered in the side street, he made a U turn and caught me on the side street.
Looking at the image and the details of what happened, wht are my options?
From your diagram it looks like you made a big left turn. A u-turn is You originally posted that you made a u turn. Did you? Did you completely reverse your direction of travel or did you make a wide coat hanger left turn? This makes all the difference. And it also looks like you can turn left into that parking lot which is not prohibited (unless there's a sign). If you made the u turn farther ahead, went back and then made a right hand turn, that would be prohibited. But if you made a wide left turn, that is not illegal.
From your diagram it looks like you made a big left turn. A u-turn is
a turn, made by a vehicle, in the shape of a U, resulting in a reversal of direction.
You originally posted that you made a u turn. Did you? Did you completely reverse your direction of travel or did you make a wide coat hanger left turn? This makes all the difference.
And it also looks like you can turn left into that parking lot which is not prohibited (unless there's a sign). If you made the u turn farther ahead, went back and then made a right hand turn, that would be prohibited. But if you made a wide left turn, that is not illegal.
Thanks for your reply ticketcombat. You are right. I did not make a U-Turn. It was a wide left turn and at any point I was not in a reverse direction. I made a Left turn and entered in the parking lot. The cop was standing ahead of me observing everything in his door mirror. I am also sure that people always take that turn to enter the parking lot. If you can give me some wordings to fight, I will greatly appreciate. Thanks again.
Thanks for your reply ticketcombat. You are right. I did not make a U-Turn. It was a wide left turn and at any point I was not in a reverse direction. I made a Left turn and entered in the parking lot. The cop was standing ahead of me observing everything in his door mirror. I am also sure that people always take that turn to enter the parking lot.
If you can give me some wordings to fight, I will greatly appreciate.
that post is going to end up a lot like others along the street.....with 5 different signs on it (no uturn, no left turn, no stopping, no standing, no parking) just b/c some driver was too ............ ah never mind!
that post is going to end up a lot like others along the street.....with 5 different signs on it (no uturn, no left turn, no stopping, no standing, no parking) just b/c some driver was too ............ ah never mind!
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Unlike certain MPPs who want to change the law because of one accident or fatality? *************************************** Wilchris, I think your diagram and what I posted (the definition) should be more than enough to beat the ticket. Although it would be fun to cross-examine the cop and then have him read a definition of "u turn" from a dictionary, you should take the higher road. Just monitor his testimony to make sure he doesn't say you reversed direction. Get him to state you went "around" the sign onto the parking lot. Then when it's your turn, show the diagram, testify as to what you did and read the definition. That should be enough. Good luck and good fight!
hwybear wrote:
that post is going to end up a lot like others along the street.....with 5 different signs on it (no uturn, no left turn, no stopping, no standing, no parking) just b/c some driver was too ............ ah never mind!
Unlike certain MPPs who want to change the law because of one accident or fatality?
***************************************
Wilchris, I think your diagram and what I posted (the definition) should be more than enough to beat the ticket. Although it would be fun to cross-examine the cop and then have him read a definition of "u turn" from a dictionary, you should take the higher road.
Just monitor his testimony to make sure he doesn't say you reversed direction. Get him to state you went "around" the sign onto the parking lot.
Then when it's your turn, show the diagram, testify as to what you did and read the definition. That should be enough.
Yeah, Mississauga and Brampton don't let the grass grow under their feet on many different levels... Toronto is the opposite... on many... yeah that's what we get for voting in David Miller. :evil: Anyway you've got a good chance of beating this at trial. You didn't commit the offence as charged. You've got a good diagram of what you did. Back it up by taking some photographs of the sign that you were ticketed for allegedly disobeying, the area, etc (don't forget the time-date stamp). It just adds a little more evidence. TC already gave you a good foundation to fight it and he knows more than I do, so no point in repeating that. Even better: Go back to Airport Road, park in the parking lot with your camera, and take photographs of people making the same turn. :shock: That way when you're questioning the officer, you can show with undeniable photographic evidence, in addition to the diagram that you already have, that no U-turn was made; therefore, you didn't disobey a sign. (Your Worship, I would like to submit these photographs that I took myself on this date of various drivers performing the same turn that I was ticketed for by Constable So-and-So. As you can see, your Worship, at no point did this manoeuvre involve making a U-turn.) It just augments what TC suggested. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. You didn't disobey the sign and you should not have a hard time convincing the JP of that. By the way has your disclosure package been made available to you yet?
Yeah, Mississauga and Brampton don't let the grass grow under their feet on many different levels... Toronto is the opposite... on many... yeah that's what we get for voting in David Miller.
Anyway you've got a good chance of beating this at trial. You didn't commit the offence as charged. You've got a good diagram of what you did. Back it up by taking some photographs of the sign that you were ticketed for allegedly disobeying, the area, etc (don't forget the time-date stamp). It just adds a little more evidence. TC already gave you a good foundation to fight it and he knows more than I do, so no point in repeating that. Even better: Go back to Airport Road, park in the parking lot with your camera, and take photographs of people making the same turn. That way when you're questioning the officer, you can show with undeniable photographic evidence, in addition to the diagram that you already have, that no U-turn was made; therefore, you didn't disobey a sign. (Your Worship, I would like to submit these photographs that I took myself on this date of various drivers performing the same turn that I was ticketed for by Constable So-and-So. As you can see, your Worship, at no point did this manoeuvre involve making a U-turn.) It just augments what TC suggested.
I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. You didn't disobey the sign and you should not have a hard time convincing the JP of that.
By the way has your disclosure package been made available to you yet?
Glad we have a prosecutor that is on the ball....makes all photos by defendants inadmissable!! Excellent work!
Radar Identified wrote:
Back it up by taking some photographs of the sign that you were ticketed for allegedly disobeying, the area, etc (don't forget the time-date stamp). It just adds a little more evidence
Glad we have a prosecutor that is on the ball....makes all photos by defendants inadmissable!! Excellent work!
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
GTA provincial offences courts accept photos from defendants all the time, they just need the time-date stamp and the person who took the photos to be present and testify. If there's any concern, get the photos printed, go to a Commissioner of Oaths and sign an affadavit/declaration saying that the photos were taken at the location in question, they show the act that you committed at same location, etc. On what grounds is the Prosecutor getting the defense photos tossed?
hwybear wrote:
Glad we have a prosecutor that is on the ball....makes all photos by defendants inadmissable!! Excellent work!
GTA provincial offences courts accept photos from defendants all the time, they just need the time-date stamp and the person who took the photos to be present and testify. If there's any concern, get the photos printed, go to a Commissioner of Oaths and sign an affadavit/declaration saying that the photos were taken at the location in question, they show the act that you committed at same location, etc.
On what grounds is the Prosecutor getting the defense photos tossed?
GTA provincial offences courts accept photos from defendants all the time, they just need the time-date stamp and the person who took the photos to be present and testify. If there's any concern, get the photos printed, go to a Commissioner of Oaths and sign an affadavit/declaration saying that the photos were taken at the location in question, they show the act that you committed at same location, etc. On what grounds is the Prosecutor getting the defense photos tossed? - time/date must be the same as offence date as person can not prove things were identical on another date (even growth of vegetation changes daily, etc.) - photo must be available on CD and in a "RAW" format, raw format prevents altering of a photo with a photo editing program - qualifications of person to take a photo (courses an/or training) Basically all the same things defences have hammered on police for years, working in reverse against the defence.
Radar Identified wrote:
hwybear wrote:
Glad we have a prosecutor that is on the ball....makes all photos by defendants inadmissable!! Excellent work!
GTA provincial offences courts accept photos from defendants all the time, they just need the time-date stamp and the person who took the photos to be present and testify. If there's any concern, get the photos printed, go to a Commissioner of Oaths and sign an affadavit/declaration saying that the photos were taken at the location in question, they show the act that you committed at same location, etc.
On what grounds is the Prosecutor getting the defense photos tossed?
- time/date must be the same as offence date as person can not prove things were identical on another date (even growth of vegetation changes daily, etc.)
- photo must be available on CD and in a "RAW" format, raw format prevents altering of a photo with a photo editing program
- qualifications of person to take a photo (courses an/or training)
Basically all the same things defences have hammered on police for years, working in reverse against the defence.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Hmm... that's interesting. Will add that to the "checklist." :D Only issues I've seen here in T-dot are: - Photo is trying to show sign/view was "obscured" by something other than a building or permanent fixture; - Photo is trying to show road conditions caused by weather (it was snowy, wet, etc) but the photo was not taken almost immediately at scene of the offence; - Defendant did not have originals (if using old roll film) or did not have the camera with data card and originals on the data card to verify no tampering had occurred; - Photographer was not present in courtoom. That's a new angle. Camera is a device in common usage by the general public. Unless it's one of those fancy professional devices with 50 attachments and is the size of a small refrigerator, reading the manual should suffice. (I 'spose the Prosecutor could ask the defendant for disclosure of the camera manual.) :shock:
Hmm... that's interesting.
hwybear wrote:
- photo must be available on CD and in a "RAW" format, raw format prevents altering of a photo with a photo editing program
Will add that to the "checklist."
Only issues I've seen here in T-dot are:
- Photo is trying to show sign/view was "obscured" by something other than a building or permanent fixture;
- Photo is trying to show road conditions caused by weather (it was snowy, wet, etc) but the photo was not taken almost immediately at scene of the offence;
- Defendant did not have originals (if using old roll film) or did not have the camera with data card and originals on the data card to verify no tampering had occurred;
- Photographer was not present in courtoom.
hwybear wrote:
qualifications of person to take a photo (courses an/or training)
That's a new angle. Camera is a device in common usage by the general public. Unless it's one of those fancy professional devices with 50 attachments and is the size of a small refrigerator, reading the manual should suffice. (I 'spose the Prosecutor could ask the defendant for disclosure of the camera manual.)
That's a new angle. Camera is a device in common usage by the general public. Unless it's one of those fancy professional devices with 50 attachments and is the size of a small refrigerator, reading the manual should suffice. (I 'spose the Prosecutor could ask the defendant for disclosure of the camera manual.) :shock: I can not use a simple point an shoot digital camera and enter it as evidence. JP will not accept that I am not trained to use a camera for taking pictures of a crash. I would have to call out a officer trained in the use of a camera. Our prosecutor takes the same stance towards defence and it works. We are able to enter photos taken on those $6 35mm film cameras, provided we have the orginals plus another copy of all photos should defence inquire. The other way was poloroid, photo copy the pictures and bring the orginals to court. All this makes no sense when digital will imprint date/time....but arguement is ability to distort the digital images with a photoshop program.
Radar Identified wrote:
hwybear wrote:
qualifications of person to take a photo (courses an/or training)
That's a new angle. Camera is a device in common usage by the general public. Unless it's one of those fancy professional devices with 50 attachments and is the size of a small refrigerator, reading the manual should suffice. (I 'spose the Prosecutor could ask the defendant for disclosure of the camera manual.)
I can not use a simple point an shoot digital camera and enter it as evidence. JP will not accept that I am not trained to use a camera for taking pictures of a crash. I would have to call out a officer trained in the use of a camera. Our prosecutor takes the same stance towards defence and it works.
We are able to enter photos taken on those $6 35mm film cameras, provided we have the orginals plus another copy of all photos should defence inquire. The other way was poloroid, photo copy the pictures and bring the orginals to court. All this makes no sense when digital will imprint date/time....but arguement is ability to distort the digital images with a photoshop program.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Would be $6 well spent. (Note to self: Carry $6 35mm camera next time driving through Chatham. :) Second note to self: Stop writing notes to self on ontariohighwaytrafficact.com. :shock: )
hwybear wrote:
We are able to enter photos taken on those $6 35mm film cameras, provided we have the orginals plus another copy of all photos should defence inquire. The other way was poloroid, photo copy the pictures and bring the orginals to court.
Would be $6 well spent. (Note to self: Carry $6 35mm camera next time driving through Chatham. Second note to self: Stop writing notes to self on ontariohighwaytrafficact.com. )
I am bit confused now. I have the photos of the location taken from different angles by a professional photographer named Bill Knudsen (link= ://buytelescopes.com/imagegallery.aspx?c=16193) but by no means there is a date and time stamp on it. He shoot them and copied over to his hard disk and gave it to me. Can I make a CD of it as a raw data? Disclosure is yet to be received.
I am bit confused now. I have the photos of the location taken from different angles by a professional photographer named Bill Knudsen (link= ://buytelescopes.com/imagegallery.aspx?c=16193) but by no means there is a date and time stamp on it. He shoot them and copied over to his hard disk and gave it to me. Can I make a CD of it as a raw data? Disclosure is yet to be received.
Well, today was my date and I got adjournment for not providing me a disclosure. So it is now set to November10. However, the prosecutor and cop gave me a copy of Cop's notes and said that he gave me a disclosure. It is just few lines about the incident. Is it called a disclosure? Shouldn't I get something more in more details? Very perplexed what to do?
Well, today was my date and I got adjournment for not providing me a disclosure. So it is now set to November10. However, the prosecutor and cop gave me a copy of Cop's notes and said that he gave me a disclosure. It is just few lines about the incident. Is it called a disclosure? Shouldn't I get something more in more details?
I will be going to trial for my red light camera offence.
I'll be arguing two issues, centered on the fact that there are two essential elements of 144(18) - a) a vehicle approaching the intersection shall stop; and b) the vehicle shall not proceed until green. Both essential elements must be contravened beyond a reasonable doubt to be an offence.
1) My ticket says I (being the owner) am "charged…
I know that the RIDE program has been covered extensively in these great forums, but I have a question about the stop itself:
I recently was stopped for a RIDE Program and the officer asked me to roll the window down all of the way (I had it at half and could easily communicate with them). I told them that I could hear them just fine and they insisted I roll it down all of the way. Again I told…
Not sure the right place for this so if it needs to be moved please do so.
I was stopped today for 15 over the speed limit, I gave all the documents to the officer and he said he could not accept a photocopy of my ownership only the original I had a photo copy front and back and I had my plate sticker number with it.
he gave me a ticket for HWY ACT Section 7(5)(a) he said only the original would…
Hey! I'm from Sudbury Ontario. Hope that general talk is fine for this subject
I am very serious about looking for exact ruling about underfacing lighting
Section 14 clearly states:
Red and blue lights to the front restricted
(14.1) In addition to the lighting requirements in this Part, a police department vehicle may carry lamps that cast red and blue lights, but no other motor vehicle shall carry…
i was driving my dad's car when i was caught by the red light camera in Brampton. My dad would've to take time off work to go ask for a trial and then go to one.
Can i represent him? if yes, what do i need to do?
I was pulled over and told I went through a red light during a right turn. I learned through a friend who is a police constable that the one who pulled me over is new to the job (under a year, and possibly even the first month or two of real duty).
I was given a ticket for $180. I have some questions:
(1) Is this offense automatically associated with 3 demerit points? I see no mention of them on…
I got a ticket for 'Disobey Stop Sign' in November of 2013 (in York Region), requested disclosure and went to court in August of 2014. At my first appearance, I did not plea but requested an ajournment to to consult legal advice. The JOP set the next appearance in September.
I contacted a paralegal about my options. He told me that on my next appearance, if the police officer did not show, the…
I had a trial and found guilty, but the trial seemed to go wrong since the beginning.
The JP asked me if i am intending to take the stand- I said NO.
I asked how to submit my evidence-documents and photos.
JP said-i have to take the stand if i want to submit evidence.(Now i am finding this is wrong-i could introduce my evidence during cross examination and my defense would be much stronger)
Ottawa, Canada (AHN) - Beginning Tuesday, or April Fool's Day 2008, fines on Quebec drivers caught overspeeding will be doubled. It is not only the money penalty that will go up, but also demerit points.
The new law, Bill 42, is similar to Ontario's street racing rule. It stipulates fines for motorists who drive at over 40 km/h at under 60 km/h zones, speed at 50 km/h at 60 to 90 km/h areas and…
Make big trucks go slower and the roads will become safer.
Obvious, isn't it? It's also obvious when you look out the window that the world is flat.
Last Monday, truckers in Ontario tried to mount a convoy to Queen's Park to show their opposition to electronic speed limiters. These devices, electronic chips in trucks' engine management systems, restrict speeds…
I was out on a four lane highway around Orangeville Ontario and I noticed a school bus coming south (I was going north). I kept my eyes on the bus in case it was going to stop. As I approached it, it was slowing down a little, but no lights, and especially no arm with the STOP sign. As I was just about to pass the bus, I still did not see the lights, nor did I see the STOP sign.
Hey everyone first off I'd like to say great website, I have been reading and it is very useful
I'm posting today as I'd like to get some feedback on my situation and have a couple of questions. Please excuse the vagueness in some areas - I don't want my case to be identifiable given the small town.
So I was driving up north and was pulled over by an OPP SUV for doing 31 over. Cop drove past me,…
Driving on a 80km/hr highway the car ahead hits the brakes and slows to 55, l slow down right behind him no reason to slow down traffic was moving between 80 and 90. I notice the driver is on the phone and looking through papers on the passenger seat. He begins to start to go a opp officer drives by doing 80 plus in oncoming lane turns around and says l was following to close. Told him what was…
My son was making a right turn at the intersection he had a green so slowed down looked and proceeded into the turn. It was pouring rain and the was a big pool of water as he got arround the curb. He tried to keep the car going sharp right however it slid into the car making a left turn. the lane he was turning into is very narrow and at a very busy corner. He paniced and left the scene only…
I had an collision the other day. I was turing left and ran into a car going straight in the opposite direction. The insurance company has already determined that I'm at fault, since I made the left turn. But I'm wondering whether I should go on trail and at least I might get rid of the ticket. The ticket was under 142(1)
I was told that if I go on court, both the guy I hit and the officer who…
question for a friend of mine.....says she got a 3 day suspension for giving a A on a roadside. Thing is she wasnt driving. She is a g2 driver and the car was parked in a parking lot, she just ran out to get something and turned the car on. Can a 3 day be issued if you arent driving on a highway - (I've read for impaired it doesnt matter, but 3 day isnt criminal)? And is there any way to…
I can't find the category for this post so I'm posting it here.
Two questions...
1. Are golf carts considered a 'vehicle' under the Highway traffic act? I know carts can't drive across roads or on roads but if you try to bring one from the USA into Canada they are considered a 'vehicle'.
2. If you are on private property are you allowed to carry 'opened' alcohol in your golf cart? I know golf…
I got pulled over (along with about 10 other cars) for going through a road closed sign. I had just pulled out of a parking lot pretty much right beside the road closed sign, and with about 4 cars behind me there wasn't much I could do but go through, so I think I have a good chance of fighting it. However, on my ticket under the Signature of issuing Provincial Offences Officer, it's left…
I was driving westbound on Hwy. 8 earlier this month in North Dumfries Township, approaching the Cambridge city limits. The weather was clear and the roads were dry. I noticed a vehicle on the shoulder on my side of the road, pointing towards me. This didn't concern me right away, as it is a rural area and I sometimes see vehicles doing mail delivery. The vehicle then started accelerating and…
I was pulled over yesterday in a community safety zone and told I was doing 84 in a 50. When i passed the officer I looked at my odometer and I was only doing 64. I was given a summons on the spot to appear in court at the end of June. Do I have any chance in this if it comes down to his word over mine. I was in the car alone but have travelled these same roads every day, twice a day for 6 years…
who is at fault when :a) a passenger opens door and jumps out of vehicle onto the road with traffic. b) he gets hit by a car travelling in the adjoining lane. c) traffic lights were green. d) pedestrian crossing was further up and indicated "no crossing" light e) the vehicle that he exited from leaves the scene as soon as accident occurred. f) no charges have been laid after police filed report…
Actually you gather the demerits until you get 9 in a period of 2 years and that wins you an interview in which you justify why you should keep your licence. That has nothing to do with your insurance rates.
That way when you're questioning the officer, you can show with undeniable photographic evidence, in addition to the diagram that you already have, that no U-turn was made; therefore, you didn't disobey a sign. (Your Worship, I would like to submit these photographs that I took myself on this date of various drivers performing the same turn that I was ticketed for by Constable So-and-So. As you can see, your Worship, at no point did this manoeuvre involve making a U-turn.) It just augments what TC suggested.
Second note to self: Stop writing notes to self on ontariohighwaytrafficact.com. 
