Search found 53 matches

TicketCombat has an entire section on seatbelts and some possible defenses.

http://www.ticketcombat.com/seatbelt/intro.php

option 1 is not guilty/trial ..... So I,m assuming you're suggesting pleading not guilty even though this is photo evidence, and negotiate a lower fine at time of trial?

Your understanding is correct - Not guilty Trial.

It's a free country and even though they have the photo evidence the goverment must still properly convict you at trial. Hence ...

Always Option 3.

With Option 3 you still have the leverage of forcing them to put on a full trial and use court time. Thus you can make a plea deal.

With Option 2 you have plead guilty and have no leverage. You will probably end up with the same fine as Option 1, but will have also wasted time attending court.

It will depend on how they do it at the court house you will be attending. But you should be able to get a plea bargain simply by speaking to the crown prior to the start of court on your day.

Asking for disclosure will not change the way the crown handles a plea bargain. However asking for disclosure creates an opportunity for the crown to mess ...

They came to my house with police officer and pressurized her and get the Insurance information from my wife while I was away.

Question: What are you required to do in this situation?

Can you tell the officer, "I know nothing about this. please leave", then shut the door?

Or are you required to provide them with DL, insurance etc?

If you ...

You missed out the definition of the term VEHICLE..which is of great importance in this and any other Act containing this word. Then add the word MOTOR .... it comes as no surprise to me that the the word MOTOR has been attached to the definition of vehicle to obscure the fact that a vehicle is a vessel of commerce. If yoou read the Acts ...

Apparently he was not arrested or even charged/fined for his stance.

I don't follow you.

Why would you have an expectation of being charged for using an "off the wall" defense? As long as your respectful when you present it to the Justice then your free to use the defense of your choice, the worst thing that can happen is that it's fails and ...

I think your first problem is that Blacks is an American Law Dictionary.

But more importantly, you need to look at the relevant Act. Each Act defines the scope and meaning of the terms its using, and its normally found in the first section of the Act.

The following are the meaning that appear to be of interest to you from The Ontario Highway ...

hwybear wrote:We will probably agree to disagree but that is how I would treat the situation.

You have convinced me that Car A has the right of way.

And now that I know this I'm going to be way more aggressive in exercising my right of way when I'm making Lefts.

I was closely following the front car when the light turned yellow. I think I can pass and it was raining so I did not stop.

So the conditions where making it difficult to stop, yet you where closely following the car in front of you?

Sound like your lucky you didn't also get a careless or following too closely charge. Becareful with what you ...

"At an intersection with stop signs at all corners , you must yield the right-of-way to the first vehicle to come to a complete stop"

Agreed, but this is not the situation being asked about.

The situation is:

"East and westbound directions are controlled by stop signs, and the north and southbound directions are through traffic."

The ...

I think what you remember and want is this:

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/driver/handbook/section2.4.3.shtml

At any intersection where you want to turn left or right, you must yield the right-of-way. If you are turning left, you must wait for approaching traffic to pass or turn and for pedestrians in or approaching your path to cross. If ...

I believe that you are correct, I'd go with 141(5):

As I understand this, if your turning Left you do not get the right of way over anybody.

Turning at intersections

141.

Left turn, across path of approaching vehicle

(5) No driver or operator of a vehicle in an intersection shall turn left across the path of a vehicle approaching from the ...

I came across this story in today's paper, he clearly didn't visit this site and decided to use a nut job defense.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2010 ... 41071.html

The notice of summons is in fact the "ticket" you received.

You can get a "ticket" either via a Provincial Offense notice (PON) (the normal way) or via a Summons (what you got).

An officer only has a limited number of days (10?) to issue a PON after that they need to get a Crown or Justice to issue a Summons.

The amount of time that it took ...

correct can not turn right.

HTA 144
Green arrow
(14) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing one or more green arrow indications only or in combination with a circular red or circular amber indication and facing the indication may proceed only to follow the direction shown by the arrow

I bet 99.9% of drivers in Ontario are ...

I am planning to go to court and plead not guilty as I do not think it was fair for a trap like that in an intersection that the sign was not visible although the officer assured me that there were 8 sign there !!!


If that is going to be your defense then you'll lose for sure, if you actually go to trial.

File for disclose and see if you can ...

Congrats on your win!

I'm surprised that the crown seemed so upset. With most people fighting a ticket being "sheep to the slaughter", you would expect the crown to appreciate a good fight.

It looks the the JP did and he's was the one that counts.

thats good news! would you care to elaborate how you won the case?

Thanks.

I won because I was prepared and had multiple lines of defense. I didnt in fact get to make the argument in regards to the use of an old Offense Notice. However, for your benefit here is my understanding of how to make the argument.

First off, confirm that you do have ...

I just wanted to provide a final update to this thread since I hate how many other threads end the day before court and we never get to find out how things ended up.

Yesterday I arrived in court prepared to do battle arguing legal points before the Justice. I was ready with:

1 An 11b Motion to stay due to unreasonable delay.
2) A Motion to Quash ...

racer wrote:You need to have a ticket that is written on an old form.

I had a ticket written on the old form, but was concerned with my ability to present this arguement of the JP or Crown started to press me on the details of the various act and how it worked. Hence I was hoping somebody could lay out the arguement in detail.

It doesn't matter now, I won!!!

Got the ruling today. The ticket was quashed.

As this was a first level OCJ ruling, it isn't binding so you don't necessarily need the case law to make the same argument. I have to check with the defendant tonight to see if she's OK with me plastering her name all over the internet.

Anyone can make the same argument in court. The argument is a ...

Other than sending a fax with a receipt to show that you attempted to file it over the holidays... probably not, unfortunately. It still wouldn't get to them until the first business day. That's probably a useless gesture, though. I'd file it on Monday and see how it goes.

That's what I was expecting to here. I will file on Monday and try to ...

Hello,

I have court date Jan 21, 2010 which I was planning to file an 11b for.

I prepared it while I was on holidays, but have just found out that the court has been closed since X-mas.

If I file Monday Jan 4, 2010. I'm not certain if the document will qualify as being filed 15 days prior.

Will I be ok if I file on Monday or am I out of luck ...

can you elaborate on "the tickes she was issues is invalid"?

Forget about the invalid ticket argument, it's unproven and it's similiar to using tax advice from a "tax defiler" advocate.

Filing an 11b should be sufficent to win, assuming that your gf hasn't been responsible for any of the delays (Although I would expect the crown to argue she ...

Based on reading your "first defense strategy" I'm going project that you'll be found guilty as a result of it. The reason being it's not really a defense strategy, it amounts more to saying "DID NOT" and will alway lose to the cops "DID TOO".

Most people are better off by taking a deal and pleading down to a lessor charge instead of going to ...

About 10 years ago I had a similiar incident around that same location in front of the Ford Plant. A metal "dangerous material" sign fell off a tanker in front of me, and hit my car, it caused $1000+ of damage.

I was pretty shaken up by the incident, since it could have gone through the front windshield if it had bounced differently, so I didn't ...

I agree with that... just one minor point... if the officer indicates he did use radar at trial and in the notes, that could lead to some interesting cross-examination by the defence (credibility).

I understand your point however, JP's tend to give credibility to the cops, so using a "DID NOT" defense will always lose to the cops "DID TOO".

If ...

Based on personal experience, I'm certain your son needs to be at least 40lbs to be in an unsecured booster.

The booster seat as you describe it is probably unsafe for your son, as it's around 10kgs where kids move from rear facing to forward facing car seats.

I think the police officer got the charge right.

One way of dealing with the ticket ...

Ive read this and Ill make a few comments:

1 – I dont think that there is a French defense here. The cop doesnt need to speak French to you, in fact other than asking for your documents he really doesnt need to say a word. If your husband has responded "Parle vous France" when asked for his papers there might be a defense for not producing his ...