Hello all, I was driving down vic park then I turned right on to my OWN street (old sheppard ave.) during a time that was posted as no turns (7-9am). I hardly ever go that way as I was picking my car up from a mechanic, and have never seen the sign there. I went back and checked and it is not bilingual. I also just moved into the neighbourhood 6 months ago. Is there anyway of getting out of the ticket because I live on that street? Or should I just use the bilingual defence? All of the threads on this site are about a year old. Does that defense still hold true or have they changed anything to correct for it? I have a clean record and do not want the insurance hike. If someone could provide some advice that would be great.
Hello all,
I was driving down vic park then I turned right on to my OWN street (old sheppard ave.) during a time that was posted as no turns (7-9am). I hardly ever go that way as I was picking my car up from a mechanic, and have never seen the sign there. I went back and checked and it is not bilingual. I also just moved into the neighbourhood 6 months ago.
Is there anyway of getting out of the ticket because I live on that street?
Or should I just use the bilingual defence? All of the threads on this site are about a year old. Does that defense still hold true or have they changed anything to correct for it?
I have a clean record and do not want the insurance hike.
If someone could provide some advice that would be great.
No, but... Yes, you can use bilingual defence. Start off by sending in the ticket requesting the trial option, and make a disclosure request. You want the officer's notes, and an explanation and clarification of the charge. One of the things they must give you in the disclosure package is a certified copy of the by-law that put a sign like "No turns 7-9 AM MON-FRI" in place. If they don't give you proper disclosure, 20 days in advance of the trial you can file a motion for a stay. If they do give you what you need, you can then use bilingual defence. The city of Toronto is a "designated bilingual area." What you want to do is, at trial, say that the sign is invalid, as Toronto, per the French Language Services Act, is a designated bilingual area. As such, the signs must be bilingual. This was "affirmed" by the R. v. Myers case and held up on appeal. Here's a good resource: http://www.ticketcombat.com/step5/bilingual.php Translation: Your ticket is toast. But you'll need to do some work to make it so.
cchapman wrote:
Is there anyway of getting out of the ticket because I live on that street?
No, but...
cchapman wrote:
Or should I just use the bilingual defence? All of the threads on this site are about a year old. Does that defense still hold true or have they changed anything to correct for it?
Yes, you can use bilingual defence. Start off by sending in the ticket requesting the trial option, and make a disclosure request. You want the officer's notes, and an explanation and clarification of the charge. One of the things they must give you in the disclosure package is a certified copy of the by-law that put a sign like "No turns 7-9 AM MON-FRI" in place. If they don't give you proper disclosure, 20 days in advance of the trial you can file a motion for a stay.
If they do give you what you need, you can then use bilingual defence. The city of Toronto is a "designated bilingual area." What you want to do is, at trial, say that the sign is invalid, as Toronto, per the French Language Services Act, is a designated bilingual area. As such, the signs must be bilingual. This was "affirmed" by the R. v. Myers case and held up on appeal. Here's a good resource:
Radar identified, Thanks for the information! 2 more questions, 1) If the cop doesn't show up to the trail I am out of it regardless correct? Which from what I understand is the most likely scenario in Toronto. 2) Since I posted the last message I had a law friend of mine look into it briefly and he said the appeal was allowed and not upheld. What he is telling me seems contrary to the information I have read on the bilingual defence. I am a little confused as I an not an expert on this. He said it still can work it just isn't as sound because the precedent was not set in the appeals. What is your opinion on this? This is what he wrote- "The trial judge who ruled in favour of Myers made a decision that was overturned at the appeal level. The judge who originally ruled does not hear the appeal, it is heard by 3 judges at the appeal level. What the appeal judges say trumps what the trial judge says and the trial judge can't do anything about it. Summary of the appeals case: Defendant disobeyed sign prohibiting turn "7 AM - 7 PM MON-FRI" -- Sign was in English only and did not include words "LUN-VEN" -- Regulation under Highway Traffic Act requires that sign in area designated by French Language Services Act shall indicate prohibited times in French as well as English -- Offence occurred in City of Toronto which is designated area under latter Act -- Defendant was charged with disobeying sign contrary to Highway Traffic Act -- Trial judge dismissed charge -- Trial judge held that sign was invalid as it did not comply with statutory requirement of being bilingual -- Trial judge also held that it was not necessary for City to enact by-law concerning language of signs for Regulation to be effective -- City appealed dismissal of charge -- Defendant did not contest appeal -- Appeal allowed -- Verdict of acquittal was set aside and conviction entered -- Penalty imposed was fine in sum of $90, which was payable within 60 days. APPEAL by city from judgment reported at R. v. Myers (2004), 2004 CarswellOnt 5638, [2004] O.J. No. 4763 (Ont. C.J.), dismissing defendant's charge under Highway Traffic Act. It is on the website as a "success" because he did win the trial case, and he allowed the appeal. When the city appealed the decision he didn't argue it back and let the conviction go because it would have been too expensive for his client I'm assuming. That website must be wrong, it was successful on trial but I read both the trial case and the appeals case."
Radar identified,
Thanks for the information!
2 more questions,
1) If the cop doesn't show up to the trail I am out of it regardless correct? Which from what I understand is the most likely scenario in Toronto.
2) Since I posted the last message I had a law friend of mine look into it briefly and he said the appeal was allowed and not upheld. What he is telling me seems contrary to the information I have read on the bilingual defence. I am a little confused as I an not an expert on this. He said it still can work it just isn't as sound because the precedent was not set in the appeals. What is your opinion on this?
This is what he wrote-
"The trial judge who ruled in favour of Myers made a decision that was overturned at the appeal level. The judge who originally ruled does not hear the appeal, it is heard by 3 judges at the appeal level. What the appeal judges say trumps what the trial judge says and the trial judge can't do anything about it.
Summary of the appeals case:
Defendant disobeyed sign prohibiting turn "7 AM - 7 PM MON-FRI" -- Sign was in English only and did not include words "LUN-VEN" -- Regulation under Highway Traffic Act requires that sign in area designated by French Language Services Act shall indicate prohibited times in French as well as English -- Offence occurred in City of Toronto which is designated area under latter Act -- Defendant was charged with disobeying sign contrary to Highway Traffic Act -- Trial judge dismissed charge -- Trial judge held that sign was invalid as it did not comply with statutory requirement of being bilingual -- Trial judge also held that it was not necessary for City to enact by-law concerning language of signs for Regulation to be effective -- City appealed dismissal of charge -- Defendant did not contest appeal -- Appeal allowed -- Verdict of acquittal was set aside and conviction entered -- Penalty imposed was fine in sum of $90, which was payable within 60 days.
APPEAL by city from judgment reported at R. v. Myers (2004), 2004 CarswellOnt 5638, [2004] O.J. No. 4763 (Ont. C.J.), dismissing defendant's charge under Highway Traffic Act.
It is on the website as a "success" because he did win the trial case, and he allowed the appeal. When the city appealed the decision he didn't argue it back and let the conviction go because it would have been too expensive for his client I'm assuming. That website must be wrong, it was successful on trial but I read both the trial case and the appeals case."
I'll see what I can do. I can't physically get tothe link as you need to have access to the law periodicals/journals within a law school. I am sure you could go to a library and dig it up. Let me talk to my friend again to see if I can get an electronic copy or if there is another way to access it.
I'll see what I can do. I can't physically get tothe link as you need to have access to the law periodicals/journals within a law school. I am sure you could go to a library and dig it up. Let me talk to my friend again to see if I can get an electronic copy or if there is another way to access it.
This one was bugging me so I hauled myself over to the law library and looked up the case law. There isn't any. The only thing that exists are the transcripts of the trial decision and the appeal. So let's set this up properly. The defendant is a lawyer. Her lawyer is an articling lawyer working for the firm. So lawyer defendant and lawyer rep. They win at trial based on the strength of their arguments. Generally their legal costs are covered by the firm. Even the appeals. The city is miffed. The mayor gets scrummed by the media. The City of Toronto makes over $100 million/year in ticket revenue. This is BIG. Along comes a case where they might have to forgo that revenue or change all their signs. Either option is going to cost them millions. They are not going to put up with it. But what could they possibly do about it and what could they argue??? Fast forward to the appeal. The city prosecutor, the city's lawyer (Mr. Bartlett) and the defendant's lawyer (Mr. Brown) are all there. The justice walks in and asks what are we hearing today. The city's lawyer says (and this is an excerpt from the transcript [2005 CarswellOnt 10019]): In other words, the defendant AGREED to the conviction. You've won at trial. The city appeals. You go to the appeal and without any contest say, we'll take the conviction and the fine, thank you very much. WTF?!? Why would you do that? The appeal court did not overturn the ruling, it entered a conviction because the appellant and the defendant agreed to the conviction without any explanation as to why. So what does this mean? You decide if the original argument is still good.
This one was bugging me so I hauled myself over to the law library and looked up the case law. There isn't any. The only thing that exists are the transcripts of the trial decision and the appeal.
So let's set this up properly. The defendant is a lawyer. Her lawyer is an articling lawyer working for the firm. So lawyer defendant and lawyer rep. They win at trial based on the strength of their arguments. Generally their legal costs are covered by the firm. Even the appeals.
The city is miffed. The mayor gets scrummed by the media. The City of Toronto makes over $100 million/year in ticket revenue. This is BIG. Along comes a case where they might have to forgo that revenue or change all their signs. Either option is going to cost them millions. They are not going to put up with it. But what could they possibly do about it and what could they argue???
Fast forward to the appeal. The city prosecutor, the city's lawyer (Mr. Bartlett) and the defendant's lawyer (Mr. Brown) are all there. The justice walks in and asks what are we hearing today. The city's lawyer says (and this is an excerpt from the transcript [2005 CarswellOnt 10019]):
MR. BARTLETT: I'm seeking the appeal to be allowed and a conviction entered, and fine imposed at this level.
THE COURT: The appeal to be allowed. Is it your appeal?
MR. BARTLETT: Yes, it is. It's a --appeal.
THE COURT: Then you are going to be arguing this matter, is that correct?
MR. BARTLETT: That's correct, but it's not being opposed.
MR. BROWN: That's correct.
In other words, the defendant AGREED to the conviction. You've won at trial. The city appeals. You go to the appeal and without any contest say, we'll take the conviction and the fine, thank you very much. WTF?!? Why would you do that?
The appeal court did not overturn the ruling, it entered a conviction because the appellant and the defendant agreed to the conviction without any explanation as to why. So what does this mean? You decide if the original argument is still good.
I was also confused over that one because I've seen the bilingual defence argument used in court (was in January). Officer's testimony was lengthy, precise and exacting. Defendant's only response was: Sign is not bilingual so it's not valid, and I have photos. JP asks to see photos, asks for closing arguments, then quashes the charge. So I've seen it work. Will it work for you? Can't guarantee anything, but go after all avenues including possible improper disclosure angle. At first, upon reading it, I had to slap myself to see if I was awake. After all that work, they just caved in? Was there some backroom bribery going on?!? "Golly gee, I spent dozens of hours preparing and researching for this, I won already, I've got all kinds of evidence and legislation to back this up... therefore I surrender." WHAT?!
I was also confused over that one because I've seen the bilingual defence argument used in court (was in January). Officer's testimony was lengthy, precise and exacting. Defendant's only response was: Sign is not bilingual so it's not valid, and I have photos. JP asks to see photos, asks for closing arguments, then quashes the charge. So I've seen it work. Will it work for you? Can't guarantee anything, but go after all avenues including possible improper disclosure angle.
ticketcombat wrote:
In other words, the defendant AGREED to the conviction. You've won at trial. The city appeals. You go to the appeal and without any contest say, we'll take the conviction and the fine, thank you very much. WTF?!? Why would you do that?
At first, upon reading it, I had to slap myself to see if I was awake. After all that work, they just caved in? Was there some backroom bribery going on?!? "Golly gee, I spent dozens of hours preparing and researching for this, I won already, I've got all kinds of evidence and legislation to back this up... therefore I surrender." WHAT?!
Backroom bribery, i second that. Cchapman, i got 2 tickets of this type (already posted in the forum) no left turn 7AM-9AM, one against a by-law, one against HTA. Both charges were voluntarily dropped by the Crown when i showed up in court (Markham & 401) although cops were there on both ocassions.
Backroom bribery, i second that.
Cchapman, i got 2 tickets of this type (already posted in the forum) no left turn 7AM-9AM, one against a by-law, one against HTA.
Both charges were voluntarily dropped by the Crown when i showed up in court (Markham & 401) although cops were there on both ocassions.
I just got a ticket for a prohibited right turn. Bay St. southbound onto Richmond. Is the bilingual defense still valid? As an aside I told the officer (and I wasn't lying) that I just saw a fight break out between a guy in a black 2 door Accord and a guy on a bike at Bay and Queen. The guy on the bike beat the hell out the Accord and then the driver pulled a broom stick out of the trunk and went after bike guy... the cop could not care less. I was a little surprised that he had no interest in a violent confrontation happening right around the corner in front of City Hall.
I just got a ticket for a prohibited right turn. Bay St. southbound onto Richmond. Is the bilingual defense still valid?
As an aside I told the officer (and I wasn't lying) that I just saw a fight break out between a guy in a black 2 door Accord and a guy on a bike at Bay and Queen. The guy on the bike beat the hell out the Accord and then the driver pulled a broom stick out of the trunk and went after bike guy... the cop could not care less. I was a little surprised that he had no interest in a violent confrontation happening right around the corner in front of City Hall.
Does the sign say "Mon-Fri" ? If so, bilingual defense applies. He was busy to enforce traffic laws, there is no reason to look for other problem.
dhetherton wrote:
I just got a ticket for a prohibited right turn. Bay St. southbound onto Richmond. Is the bilingual defense still valid?
As an aside I told the officer (and I wasn't lying) that I just saw a fight break out between a guy in a black 2 door Accord and a guy on a bike at Bay and Queen. The guy on the bike beat the hell out the Accord and then the driver pulled a broom stick out of the trunk and went after bike guy... the cop could not care less. I was a little surprised that he had no interest in a violent confrontation happening right around the corner in front of City Hall.
Does the sign say "Mon-Fri" ? If so, bilingual defense applies.
He was busy to enforce traffic laws, there is no reason to look for other problem.
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…
