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 got ticket for failing to stop at stop sign in Toronto. i heard that the police officer must see the stop line, if there is one, from where he was sitting. That is exactly my case, Is it a strong case? If so do i need a picture to show that there is a stop line and a picture to show that he could not see the stop line from where he was sitting?
I got a ticket, Disobey stop sign, sec 136.1.a on dec 6th
I made a left in an intersection and was pulled over by a police officer in an unmarked car who had been sitting down the road. A classic fishing hole situation. I was genuinely surprised when he stopped me and told me I went through a stop sign without even slowing down. I know to shut up and be polite and take the ticket. I…
Yesterday morning, I rear-ended someone. I was going the speed limit. The sun was directly in front of me and it blinded my windshield and my eyes. At the same time, the person in front of me stopped/slowed down (also due to the sun). I started to slow down but didn't stop and I hit them since I couldn't see anything. I was not driving too close initially. I…
I was driving in the county at night and hit a limousine stretched out side ways across the road. The limo had its lights on and had side lighting as well. The police officer charged me with careless driving because it was "fully lit up".
It took me to the next day to figure out what had happened - what I remember made no sense. What I had run across was a "false visual reference" illusion.
I was on hwy 37 trying to make my girlfriends ganadmas mass and I live an hour away and I had an hour to get there so I was going fast but not 50 over untill some idiot got on my tail soo close that I was to concentrated on him that I kept going faster untill I got pulled over at 147 on an 80 km hwy.
I alreaddy lost 3 points and this time was just the…
Hello, got stopped today for rolling a stop sign. Ticket says failure to stop, but quotes hta 1361b.
Doesn't 1361b mean failure to yield?
Is this a fatal error? Or could it be amended at trial. How can I prepare a defence if I don't know if I'm defending the failure to stop or the failure to yield?
After he was providing me with a ticket for failure to obey to the stop sign (I am pretty sure I stopped but less than 3 seconds recommended by my driver ed. instructor), I know everybody say that..as an excuse.
Then he stopped me again to return the documents.
Any advice and feed back would be really appreciated.
Can you get evidence for whether someone had an advanced green at an intersection? My dad was making a right turn on a red (after stopping) into a plaza parking lot. He got hit by someone making a left turn from the opposite lane. The driver told the officer called to the collision that he had an advance green. My dad said he came out of nowhere which makes me…
So i was driving on Eglinton Avenue East near Rosemount Ave.
The school bus was on the the curb on the opposite side of the road while i was travelling on the middle lane of the three-laned Eglinton Avenue East (five lanes apart plus a raised median island seperating the traffic)
I could not see the school bus as my view of the bus was being obstructed by the cars in front of me and on my left hand…
Lots of good information on getting disclosure from the Crown here.
Now, I am just wondering if I will be relying upon evidence of my own at trial... do I have to voluntarily send this material to the Crown in a reasonable time before the trial, or only if they request disclosure from me?
This morning I had an exam for university. I was studying the entire night and i wanted to catch like maybe 1-2 hours of sleep before the exam so i went to sleep. I woke up like 5 hrs after and realize that I was about to miss my exam. I still could have made it so I asked my dad for his car since I was in a huge rush and he gave it to me.
I went on the highway and I was going at 135 km/h but…
the police officer was in in the opesite oncumming lane he was fallowing another car so close that i was not even able to see his cruser till he was buy he said that i was going 111 in a 80 he said he hade me on radar he only asked for me drivers licencs and never asked for my insurence so on the ticket there no insurence dose enyone think i can beat this i wana take it to cort becuse he was…
Hi I have a couple questions so I'll explain my situation and any advice would be appreciated.
Can't remember exact date so lets call it some time in 2008 I got a fine for $5000.00 for driving without in insurance. I never paid the fine and in 2012 I was pulled over and the officer asked to see my license. Although I had it on me I figured it would be under suspension for the unpaid fine from…
Alright, so I did something really stupid the other day, I was driving down a country road and wanted to hit the curves so I passed 3 cars at once, inadvertently making it up to very much past 50 over (80 limit)... Much to my chagrin there was a cop coming in the opposite direction who immediately skidded on the gravel shoulder and who I thought was 100% going to turn around and pull me over,…
Anyone know how backed this courthouse is? I submitted my ticket for trial at the end of August, and still no letter. Im scared it got lost in the mail, can i call the courthouse and find out my courtdate? Or would i have to go in personally?
I recently received a ticket for failure to use low beams - while following - Ticket was issued Sec 168 (
- it was on the 401 and no one was within 500 meters of me, I was warning a oncoming vehicle that there was an officer hiding (which is not illegal or I could not find a law against it) it was a police vehicle travelling at very high rate of speed in the opposite direction with no lights on…
I received a warning letter from MTO for a 2pts ticket.What happened is that the police officer issued a "unsafe left turn" and then changed the ticket to "failed to signal" at the scene, but she submitted both tickets!!! And I !!!ONLY!!! received the latter ticket from her(I requested trial for "failed to signal"). I recently received notice from MTO that I'm convicted for "unsafe left turn".
Hello everyone! I was given a ticket for using a hand-held communication device while driving. It was 3 am, I was at a stop light and the cop saw me with the my phone in my hand. I told him i was just checking the time on it. I received the notes a few weeks ago ill copy them down below. Any help is appreciated although i believe there's no hope for me. The cop recorded me saying what phone i…
I got pulled over about 15 or so days ago the court till this date has not received the summons what is the legal time period that the court has to follow to accept the summons from the office court says its 15 days is the legal timeframe the officer has to serve it on the court
I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
Last Friday I was pulled over by an OPP motorcycle cop who informed me I was going 134. I was on the SB 404, I did see him parked under a bridge and when I passed him he was not on his bike.
I'm hoping to get some insight for a defense in this case.
I was in lane 1 and I had a car in front of me, and a car behind me, also there was a car speeding down Lane 3 passing everyone and moved quickly into…
