Stunt driving charge at officers discretion ??? I was under the impression that "special powers, of vehicle and license suspension, towing etc." were granted by a MUST DO type clause. For instance, .05 blood alcohol reading, requires / Mandated, vehicle/license 3 day suspension ... and police are given power to do this, by stating they MUST do it. After speaking some people, I have discovered quite a few instances of people being 50 over the speed limit and NOT being charged with stunt and in some cases not even given a speeding ticket (once). ** this seems to occur is areas where there is a change is posted speed limit, most often ** Eg) east end of 407, continues into a 60 kph zone, person traveling at 130 kph was NOT charged with stunt. Reason for asking : I thought the license/vehicle suspension, etc. at roadside for stunt - 50 over, was NOT at officers discretion. I thought it had to be that way, in order for police to have those special powers ... since essentially conviction is occurring at roadside. The stunt law is confusing at quite a few levels, in terms of absolute clarity. Question is: does the stunt - speeding charge have any room for officer discretion? If there is room for officer discretion, then isn't the officer themselves acting as judge, jury, executioner?
Stunt driving charge at officers discretion ???
I was under the impression that "special powers, of vehicle and license suspension, towing etc." were granted by a MUST DO type clause.
For instance, .05 blood alcohol reading, requires / Mandated, vehicle/license 3 day suspension ... and police are given power to do this, by stating they MUST do it.
After speaking some people, I have discovered quite a few instances of people being 50 over the speed limit and NOT being charged with stunt and in some cases not even given a speeding ticket (once). ** this seems to occur is areas where there is a change is posted speed limit, most often ** Eg) east end of 407, continues into a 60 kph zone, person traveling at 130 kph was NOT charged with stunt.
Reason for asking : I thought the license/vehicle suspension, etc. at roadside for stunt - 50 over, was NOT at officers discretion. I thought it had to be that way, in order for police to have those special powers ... since essentially conviction is occurring at roadside.
The stunt law is confusing at quite a few levels, in terms of absolute clarity.
Question is: does the stunt - speeding charge have any room for officer discretion? If there is room for officer discretion, then isn't the officer themselves acting as judge, jury, executioner?
Most parts of the section state that the officer "shall", which would arguably mean there is no discretion (typically other sections of the act state that an officer "may"). But I doubt anyone would ever complain that their vehicle wasn't impounded, etc. And what would be the remedy for an officer not laying a more serious charge? And is it actually a better thing if officers never exercise discretion? I can see pros and cons each way.
Most parts of the section state that the officer "shall", which would arguably mean there is no discretion (typically other sections of the act state that an officer "may"). But I doubt anyone would ever complain that their vehicle wasn't impounded, etc. And what would be the remedy for an officer not laying a more serious charge? And is it actually a better thing if officers never exercise discretion? I can see pros and cons each way.
If you read section 172(5): (5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall, (a) request that the person surrender his or her drivers licence; and (b) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (b). Where it says "shall" refers to to fact that if the officers lays a charge under this section, it is mandatory to suspend the licence and seize the motor vehicle for seven days. There is nothing that says the officer shall lay the charge. An officer always has discretion on whether or not to lay any charge under the HTA.
If you read section 172(5):
(5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall,
(a) request that the person surrender his or her drivers licence; and
(b) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (b).
Where it says "shall" refers to to fact that if the officers lays a charge under this section, it is mandatory to suspend the licence and seize the motor vehicle for seven days.
There is nothing that says the officer shall lay the charge. An officer always has discretion on whether or not to lay any charge under the HTA.
Because stunt is defined/redefined as 50 over, among others conditions, reasonable/probable grounds just needs 50 over. Once that occurs, it seems, officers MUST suspend license/vehicle ... without discretion. I was wondering if the law is worded that way specifically to allow officers to take license/vehicle suspension actions. As in, without that, they do not have authority to take those actions. And if that is the case, then is it also true that choosing NOT to do it, is exercising discretion, which may not be permitted, by definition. I don't have the necessary background to decipher wordings of laws ... legalese is a somewhat different language. >> And is it actually a better thing if officers never exercise discretion? I think, officers discretion is a critical component, in general, though not everyone would agree. In the occurrences I mentioned above, despite those people being 50 over the speed, it was certainly a momentary, unintentional occurrence.
Because stunt is defined/redefined as 50 over, among others conditions, reasonable/probable grounds just needs 50 over.
Once that occurs, it seems, officers MUST suspend license/vehicle ... without discretion.
I was wondering if the law is worded that way specifically to allow officers to take license/vehicle suspension actions. As in, without that, they do not have authority to take those actions. And if that is the case, then is it also true that choosing NOT to do it, is exercising discretion, which may not be permitted, by definition.
I don't have the necessary background to decipher wordings of laws ... legalese is a somewhat different language.
>> And is it actually a better thing if officers never exercise discretion?
I think, officers discretion is a critical component, in general, though not everyone would agree. In the occurrences I mentioned above, despite those people being 50 over the speed, it was certainly a momentary, unintentional occurrence.
R. v. Paraschiew [2012] O.J. No. 4085 In a weird twist of fate, this appeal court decision shows that being charged with Stunt Driving would have been more advantageous to the defence than being charged with S128 Speeding. Solely because with Stunt Driving you're afforded a due diligence whereas S128 Speeding requires a necessity defence. Although, in 99% of situations most defendants have no defence for speeding; people are generally more concerned about the immediate admin penalties (7-day impound/suspension) and of course facing the minimum $2000 fine on conviction; I understand that "most" people would rather be charged with S128 Speeding. However, if they can meet a due diligence defence; although they're out for the impound/license fees... they could be found "not guilty" at trial under S172.
In a weird twist of fate, this appeal court decision shows that being charged with Stunt Driving would have been more advantageous to the defence than being charged with S128 Speeding. Solely because with Stunt Driving you're afforded a due diligence whereas S128 Speeding requires a necessity defence.
Although, in 99% of situations most defendants have no defence for speeding; people are generally more concerned about the immediate admin penalties (7-day impound/suspension) and of course facing the minimum $2000 fine on conviction; I understand that "most" people would rather be charged with S128 Speeding.
However, if they can meet a due diligence defence; although they're out for the impound/license fees... they could be found "not guilty" at trial under S172.
What I find helps a lot, be honest, apologize, and acknowledge that you've done something wrong. I'm probably the last one to talk, but last year, I was pulled over for stunt driving 4 times. I think the most I was caught over was 96 km/h over (146 in a posted 50). I think the worst punishment I got was two lightbulb infractions. The other punishment I got was a 15 over ticket (65 in a 50). Other than that, let off with warnings. It's all about attitude, if you're window is opened a crack and you're preaching "I don't have to talk to you. I have the right to remain silent. Here is my license, but I'm not giving it voluntarily." If you come off as "Good morning, oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was going that fast. It was an honest mistake and I won't do it again." then you might get off with a warning.
What I find helps a lot, be honest, apologize, and acknowledge that you've done something wrong. I'm probably the last one to talk, but last year, I was pulled over for stunt driving 4 times. I think the most I was caught over was 96 km/h over (146 in a posted 50). I think the worst punishment I got was two lightbulb infractions. The other punishment I got was a 15 over ticket (65 in a 50). Other than that, let off with warnings. It's all about attitude, if you're window is opened a crack and you're preaching "I don't have to talk to you. I have the right to remain silent. Here is my license, but I'm not giving it voluntarily." If you come off as "Good morning, oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was going that fast. It was an honest mistake and I won't do it again." then you might get off with a warning.
Due Diligence is a lower bar to meet, as you say and probably could be reasonably applied in my case. However, it's a bit of a risk to take it to trial, if offered a speeding charge instead. And chances are, even a win in a trial, would more likely just be a reduction to a speeding charge. I'm not sure if being found not guilty of stunt, also means a speeding charge goes away. The way the law is currently set up, there is no real win scenario from financial perspective. Principle is all that's left, and it comes at very high cost, if you get it. For marginal cases, like mine, from my view; effectively it just increases a speeding fine by a few thousand dollars (impound/suspensions/alternative transportation/ time off work etc.) Yes, I would have preferred the speeding ticket and be done with it.
In a weird twist of fate, this appeal court decision shows that being charged with Stunt Driving would have been more advantageous to the defence than being charged with S128 Speeding. Solely because with Stunt Driving you're afforded a due diligence whereas S128 Speeding requires a necessity defence.
Although, in 99% of situations most defendants have no defence for speeding; people are generally more concerned about the immediate admin penalties (7-day impound/suspension) and of course facing the minimum $2000 fine on conviction; I understand that "most" people would rather be charged with S128 Speeding.
However, if they can meet a due diligence defence; although they're out for the impound/license fees... they could be found "not guilty" at trial under S172.
Due Diligence is a lower bar to meet, as you say and probably could be reasonably applied in my case. However, it's a bit of a risk to take it to trial, if offered a speeding charge instead. And chances are, even a win in a trial, would more likely just be a reduction to a speeding charge. I'm not sure if being found not guilty of stunt, also means a speeding charge goes away.
The way the law is currently set up, there is no real win scenario from financial perspective. Principle is all that's left, and it comes at very high cost, if you get it.
For marginal cases, like mine, from my view; effectively it just increases a speeding fine by a few thousand dollars (impound/suspensions/alternative transportation/ time off work etc.)
Yes, I would have preferred the speeding ticket and be done with it.
4 times!!! ... I understand your username now :-) . Another officer may have seen it differently. That weekend, that officer was at that location for 2 days. Probably charged 10+ people for stunt in that area. Fish in a barrel, location .. has been ever since the 410 extension was built. He may have been there specifically with that intent. You could probably make decent money with a coffee truck in that area, catering specifically to police officers :-) Officer immediately stated he was going to impound vehicle/suspend license, when he got to my window. It was an OPP officer.
UnluckyDuck wrote:
What I find helps a lot, be honest, apologize, and acknowledge that you've done something wrong. I'm probably the last one to talk, but last year, I was pulled over for stunt driving 4 times. I think the most I was caught over was 96 km/h over (146 in a posted 50). I think the worst punishment I got was two lightbulb infractions. The other punishment I got was a 15 over ticket (65 in a 50). Other than that, let off with warnings. It's all about attitude, if you're window is opened a crack and you're preaching "I don't have to talk to you. I have the right to remain silent. Here is my license, but I'm not giving it voluntarily." If you come off as "Good morning, oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was going that fast. It was an honest mistake and I won't do it again." then you might get off with a warning.
4 times!!! ... I understand your username now .
Another officer may have seen it differently. That weekend, that officer was at that location for 2 days. Probably charged 10+ people for stunt in that area. Fish in a barrel, location .. has been ever since the 410 extension was built. He may have been there specifically with that intent. You could probably make decent money with a coffee truck in that area, catering specifically to police officers
Officer immediately stated he was going to impound vehicle/suspend license, when he got to my window. It was an OPP officer.
I'm not even sure what we're arguing here. If you've committed the offense, what's the difference? You aren't losing anything. You either get a freebie or you don't. As for the officer being "judge, jury, and executioner", it has nothing to do with him. If you're charged with stunt driving, you get suspended, towed, and impounded. He didn't write the act and he doesn't get to pick and choose the consequences once you're charged. You are either charged with stunt driving or not. It's always up to an officer whether or not they lay a charge, it's not up to them to decide you get to keep your car after charging you.
I'm not even sure what we're arguing here.
If you've committed the offense, what's the difference? You aren't losing anything. You either get a freebie or you don't.
As for the officer being "judge, jury, and executioner", it has nothing to do with him. If you're charged with stunt driving, you get suspended, towed, and impounded. He didn't write the act and he doesn't get to pick and choose the consequences once you're charged. You are either charged with stunt driving or not. It's always up to an officer whether or not they lay a charge, it's not up to them to decide you get to keep your car after charging you.
to me, the actual "spirit" of the law of Stunt driving, is racing or engaging in similar activity. Was it not actually brought in because of street racers. accelerating on an empty hiway from 100-150 - and I understand it is illegal and speeding, is not actually, "stunting" per-se there have been several threads where people have been done for stunting, where they have not been, but HAVE been speeding. just my take, and just IMHO
to me, the actual "spirit" of the law of Stunt driving, is racing or engaging in similar activity. Was it not actually brought in because of street racers.
accelerating on an empty hiway from 100-150 - and I understand it is illegal and speeding, is not actually, "stunting" per-se
there have been several threads where people have been done for stunting, where they have not been, but HAVE been speeding.
just my take, and just IMHO
--------------------------------------------------------------
* NO you cant touch your phone
* Speeding is speeding
* Challenge every ticket
* Impaired driving, you should be locked up UNDER the jail
I've seen people say this over the last couple days here, how it's not "in the spirit" of the charge. The word "racing" then comes up and I guess the assumption is that because there aren't cars battling each other or it doesn't involve a kid in a fart can honda civic that the charge isn't doing what it's meant to be doing. The regulation can be found here. It covers all kinds of obnoxious and dumb behavior including, but not limited to: - Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle. - Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the drivers seat. - driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing - stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the drivers sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so, - driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway The regulation is not limited to racing and racing activities. You don't need to be racing to get charged for stunt driving when you got someone in your trunk.
I've seen people say this over the last couple days here, how it's not "in the spirit" of the charge. The word "racing" then comes up and I guess the assumption is that because there aren't cars battling each other or it doesn't involve a kid in a fart can honda civic that the charge isn't doing what it's meant to be doing.
The regulation can be found here. It covers all kinds of obnoxious and dumb behavior including, but not limited to:
- Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle.
- Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the drivers seat.
- driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing
- stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the drivers sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,
- driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway
The regulation is not limited to racing and racing activities. You don't need to be racing to get charged for stunt driving when you got someone in your trunk.
>> I'm not even sure what we're arguing here. Trying to determine if, an officer MUST charge stunt, by law, if a vehicle is "50+ over" the posted speed limit.
bend wrote:
I'm not even sure what we're arguing here.
If you've committed the offense, what's the difference? You aren't losing anything. You either get a freebie or you don't.
As for the officer being "judge, jury, and executioner", it has nothing to do with him. If you're charged with stunt driving, you get suspended, towed, and impounded. He didn't write the act and he doesn't get to pick and choose the consequences once you're charged. You are either charged with stunt driving or not. It's always up to an officer whether or not they lay a charge, it's not up to them to decide you get to keep your car after charging you.
>> I'm not even sure what we're arguing here.
Trying to determine if, an officer MUST charge stunt, by law, if a vehicle is "50+ over" the posted speed limit.
>> What's the argument? That no one should get a break? -- laws being applied equally would be a pretty strong argument ... that's kinda the nail everything hangs on. -- "Who gets a break", is a decision for courts not an officer. I doubt officers have any significant level of discretion. I was under the impression, that 50+ over, was all that was required for stunt AND officers MUST charge stunt under that condition. I thought that wording was required to give the impound/suspension powers. What I'm hearing here is, charging stunt is at officers discretion, even when 50+ over. That surprises me; as it implies 50+ over isn't sufficient on its own, for the stunt charge. Yet, the majority of stunt charges are speed ONLY related. Most of which get reduced to speeding charges, before trial, from the few sources of information I seen. These are muddy waters. I agree with bobajob ... seems like they created a back door to allow impound/suspension for mere speeding offenses under the guise of stunt driving, for little purpose other than effectively significantly increasing speeding fines. The money side of this is significant ... assuming an average cost of impound and license reinstatement of $1000 ... every 10000 stunt charges laid ... costs the public (those charged) 10 Million dollars. Not sure how many charges there are to date but it seemed like there were about 30000 charges laid in the first few years of the stunt driving law. Given that, at least half of those charges are quickly reduced to speeding, those 30000 charges, pulled an extra 15 million dollars to tow truck/impounds and MTO, that need not happen.
bend wrote:
Let's pretend an officer MUST charge someone (they don't). What's the argument? That no one should get a break?
>> What's the argument? That no one should get a break?
-- laws being applied equally would be a pretty strong argument ... that's kinda the nail everything hangs on. -- "Who gets a break", is a decision for courts not an officer. I doubt officers have any significant level of discretion.
I was under the impression, that 50+ over, was all that was required for stunt AND officers MUST charge stunt under that condition. I thought that wording was required to give the impound/suspension powers.
What I'm hearing here is, charging stunt is at officers discretion, even when 50+ over.
That surprises me; as it implies 50+ over isn't sufficient on its own, for the stunt charge. Yet, the majority of stunt charges are speed ONLY related. Most of which get reduced to speeding charges, before trial, from the few sources of information I seen.
These are muddy waters.
I agree with bobajob ... seems like they created a back door to allow impound/suspension for mere speeding offenses under the guise of stunt driving, for little purpose other than effectively significantly increasing speeding fines.
The money side of this is significant ... assuming an average cost of impound and license reinstatement of $1000 ... every 10000 stunt charges laid ... costs the public (those charged) 10 Million dollars.
Not sure how many charges there are to date but it seemed like there were about 30000 charges laid in the first few years of the stunt driving law.
Given that, at least half of those charges are quickly reduced to speeding, those 30000 charges, pulled an extra 15 million dollars to tow truck/impounds and MTO, that need not happen.
A week ago you were "surprised" the officer wasn't willing to listen to your reasoning at the side of the road. Today you are arguing that an officer shouldn't get to decide who gets a break. You also made the point that "single mothers, the elderly, families, etc" were falling victim to stunt driving charges and that wasn't fair. You said you were just a "middle aged stiff" and not a "young adult", therefore not capable of stunt driving. Today you are arguing everyone should be treated equally. It's hard to follow where you're going because your statements take a 180. If you want everyone treated equally, then everyone doing 50+ should be treated no different than the next. Breaks may come in the form of a roadside reduction. They are offered as incentive to not go to trial. Trials cost money. That money doesn't come from thin air. You pay for it, your family pays for it, and your neighbor pays for it. You may also be offered a deal from the crown. Is that OK or is it just cops? If you don't agree neither offer a significant level of discretion, just don't take the reduction and go to trial. A lot of individuals here probably don't agree with some aspects of the stunt racing regulations. It is what it is. That's the law and the most helpful comments you'll get will discuss what to expect and how to deal with it. You can vent and go in circles about how it should be, but it's not going to help you in the court room. Stunt driving isn't the only instant administrative suspension out there. There are quite a few suspensions that will leave you out of time and money without ever being convicted of anything. Driving is not a right. Not everything is going to be fair. You either play by the rules or you take the bus. I'm not trying to sound harsh, it's just the way it is. If you don't agree with the current system, go through the proper channels. It's easy to see you're stressed about your current stunt charges. Good luck.
gbs wrote:
-- laws being applied equally would be a pretty strong argument ... that's kinda the nail everything hangs on. -- "Who gets a break", is a decision for courts not an officer. I doubt officers have any significant level of discretion.
A week ago you were "surprised" the officer wasn't willing to listen to your reasoning at the side of the road. Today you are arguing that an officer shouldn't get to decide who gets a break. You also made the point that "single mothers, the elderly, families, etc" were falling victim to stunt driving charges and that wasn't fair. You said you were just a "middle aged stiff" and not a "young adult", therefore not capable of stunt driving. Today you are arguing everyone should be treated equally. It's hard to follow where you're going because your statements take a 180. If you want everyone treated equally, then everyone doing 50+ should be treated no different than the next.
Breaks may come in the form of a roadside reduction. They are offered as incentive to not go to trial. Trials cost money. That money doesn't come from thin air. You pay for it, your family pays for it, and your neighbor pays for it. You may also be offered a deal from the crown. Is that OK or is it just cops? If you don't agree neither offer a significant level of discretion, just don't take the reduction and go to trial.
A lot of individuals here probably don't agree with some aspects of the stunt racing regulations. It is what it is. That's the law and the most helpful comments you'll get will discuss what to expect and how to deal with it. You can vent and go in circles about how it should be, but it's not going to help you in the court room.
Stunt driving isn't the only instant administrative suspension out there. There are quite a few suspensions that will leave you out of time and money without ever being convicted of anything. Driving is not a right. Not everything is going to be fair. You either play by the rules or you take the bus. I'm not trying to sound harsh, it's just the way it is.
If you don't agree with the current system, go through the proper channels.
It's easy to see you're stressed about your current stunt charges. Good luck.
Ok one last time. 1. The officer does not have to charge the stunt driving that is up to their discretion. Reductions on the side of the road happens all the time. I do not work a highway but I have rarely encountered someone going 60+ km over the speed limit. 50 over is really fast for most roads. Therefore, if someone has a good record and they did not do anything crazy they would get a 49km over speeding ticket. 2. If the officer charges then they have to Impound and suspend. They cannot charge without doing those two as well. This is a huge break and should they not recognize and decide to roll the dice and see if they can win at court that it can revert to the original speed. I have yet to see it turn out well when someone steps in front of a JP and tries to justify 49 over. There is a motion to increase the fine when they are found guilty. OPS
Ok one last time.
1. The officer does not have to charge the stunt driving that is up to their discretion. Reductions on the side of the road happens all the time. I do not work a highway but I have rarely encountered someone going 60+ km over the speed limit. 50 over is really fast for most roads. Therefore, if someone has a good record and they did not do anything crazy they would get a 49km over speeding ticket.
2. If the officer charges then they have to Impound and suspend. They cannot charge without doing those two as well.
This is a huge break and should they not recognize and decide to roll the dice and see if they can win at court that it can revert to the original speed. I have yet to see it turn out well when someone steps in front of a JP and tries to justify 49 over. There is a motion to increase the fine when they are found guilty.
There is a fair bit of info on the net "implying" that 50+ over is an automatic stunt charge. So it's good to get that notion corrected. >> I have rarely encountered someone going 60+ km over the speed limit. 50 over is really fast for most roads. -- agree ... this was in an area where there is a 20km drop in speed, where it is not intuitive that the speed limit would change. Not saying that matters, but that's what it is. I'm not sure why someone offered a reduced charge of speeding, would choose to proceed to trial. Principle, I guess ... Maybe it's the stunt driving label that irritates people most.
OPS Copper wrote:
1. The officer does not have to charge the stunt driving that is up to their discretion. Reductions on the side of the road happens all the time. I do not work a highway but I have rarely encountered someone going 60+ km over the speed limit. 50 over is really fast for most roads. Therefore, if someone has a good record and they did not do anything crazy they would get a 49km over speeding ticket.
2. If the officer charges then they have to Impound and suspend. They cannot charge without doing those two as well.
This is a huge break and should they not recognize and decide to roll the dice and see if they can win at court that it can revert to the original speed. I have yet to see it turn out well when someone steps in front of a JP and tries to justify 49 over. There is a motion to increase the fine when they are found guilty.
OPS
There is a fair bit of info on the net "implying" that 50+ over is an automatic stunt charge. So it's good to get that notion corrected.
>> I have rarely encountered someone going 60+ km over the speed limit. 50 over is really fast for most roads.
-- agree ... this was in an area where there is a 20km drop in speed, where it is not intuitive that the speed limit would change. Not saying that matters, but that's what it is.
I'm not sure why someone offered a reduced charge of speeding, would choose to proceed to trial. Principle, I guess ...
Maybe it's the stunt driving label that irritates people most.
I'd say it depends on the circumstances. Someone who speeds 50+ (stunt label or not) would probably be silly to not consider any reduced charge that puts them 49-. It's the difference between paying 5% extra on insurance vs 100%, being booted, and suffering through facility insurance. If we're talking general speeding charges, someone who is a novice driver would also benefit from a reduced charge. 30+ would have them suspended. Someone who is fully graduated with no or little history is not going to really benefit from a reduced charge (eg. 35km reduced to 10). You save a bit off the fine but that's pretty much it. Points are so plentiful and go away so quickly that they are a non issue. Insurance treats anything below 50 pretty much the same. These are the type of people who don't have much to lose. If you're going to gamble, this would be the ideal situation.
gbs wrote:
I'm not sure why someone offered a reduced charge of speeding, would choose to proceed to trial. Principle, I guess ...
I'd say it depends on the circumstances. Someone who speeds 50+ (stunt label or not) would probably be silly to not consider any reduced charge that puts them 49-. It's the difference between paying 5% extra on insurance vs 100%, being booted, and suffering through facility insurance.
If we're talking general speeding charges, someone who is a novice driver would also benefit from a reduced charge. 30+ would have them suspended.
Someone who is fully graduated with no or little history is not going to really benefit from a reduced charge (eg. 35km reduced to 10). You save a bit off the fine but that's pretty much it. Points are so plentiful and go away so quickly that they are a non issue. Insurance treats anything below 50 pretty much the same. These are the type of people who don't have much to lose. If you're going to gamble, this would be the ideal situation.
I'd say it depends on the circumstances. Someone who speeds 50+ (stunt label or not) would probably be silly to not consider any reduced charge that puts them 49-. It's the difference between paying 5% extra on insurance vs 100%, being booted, and suffering through facility insurance. If we're talking general speeding charges, someone who is a novice driver would also benefit from a reduced charge. 30+ would have them suspended. Someone who is fully graduated with no or little history is not going to really benefit from a reduced charge (eg. 35km reduced to 10). You save a bit off the fine but that's pretty much it. Points are so plentiful and go away so quickly that they are a non issue. Insurance treats anything below 50 pretty much the same. These are the type of people who don't have much to lose. If you're going to gamble, this would be the ideal situation. I would be in the little/no history category ... The sense I get, is there is a lot of pressure from other vested parties, politicians etc, to secure convictions for stunt at trial. So I would suspect the bar is quite high, higher than normal for sure, to get the charge dismissed. That kinda takes away the trial option for those who believe they have a reasonable, but not certain defense.
bend wrote:
gbs wrote:
I'm not sure why someone offered a reduced charge of speeding, would choose to proceed to trial. Principle, I guess ...
I'd say it depends on the circumstances. Someone who speeds 50+ (stunt label or not) would probably be silly to not consider any reduced charge that puts them 49-. It's the difference between paying 5% extra on insurance vs 100%, being booted, and suffering through facility insurance.
If we're talking general speeding charges, someone who is a novice driver would also benefit from a reduced charge. 30+ would have them suspended.
Someone who is fully graduated with no or little history is not going to really benefit from a reduced charge (eg. 35km reduced to 10). You save a bit off the fine but that's pretty much it. Points are so plentiful and go away so quickly that they are a non issue. Insurance treats anything below 50 pretty much the same. These are the type of people who don't have much to lose. If you're going to gamble, this would be the ideal situation.
I would be in the little/no history category ...
The sense I get, is there is a lot of pressure from other vested parties, politicians etc, to secure convictions for stunt at trial. So I would suspect the bar is quite high, higher than normal for sure, to get the charge dismissed.
That kinda takes away the trial option for those who believe they have a reasonable, but not certain defense.
That's because stunt driving is a SERIOUS offence. Comparing stunt driving and speeding is like comparing Impaired Driving with Care and Control of a Motor Vehicle with Alcohol readily available. I have never seen (or even read by browsing the forum) of an average joe getting a stunt driving charge dismissed without legal representation. Anything is possible, but the chances of that happening are the same chances as me winning $50 mil this Friday.
gbs wrote:
The sense I get, is there is a lot of pressure from other vested parties, politicians etc, to secure convictions for stunt at trial. So I would suspect the bar is quite high, higher than normal for sure, to get the charge dismissed.
That's because stunt driving is a SERIOUS offence. Comparing stunt driving and speeding is like comparing Impaired Driving with Care and Control of a Motor Vehicle with Alcohol readily available. I have never seen (or even read by browsing the forum) of an average joe getting a stunt driving charge dismissed without legal representation. Anything is possible, but the chances of that happening are the same chances as me winning $50 mil this Friday.
It has more to do with the seriousness of the charge. Stunt Driving is one of the handful of HTA charges that comes with the possibility of jail time. As far as insurance goes, stunt driving is no better or worse than driving completely hammered. It's the worst of the worst. The charge doesn't have a set fine like most HTA violations. It has a minimum and maximum penalty (Minimum: $2,000 + fees, 6 demerit points. Maximum: $10,000 + fees, 6 demerit points, Up to 6 months jail time, Suspension up to 2 years). There's a lot of room there to play around with without the need to reduce the charge. Your right to a trial is never taken away. The problem, in your case specifically, is that you currently have no defense. You were already 30+ over the speed limit when the speed reduced by 20km. There's nothing to indicate there wasn't proper signage according to the regulations. Is it a "cheap" ticket? I guess that depends on who you ask. At the end of the day, it's not a defense though.
gbs wrote:
I would be in the little/no history category ...
The sense I get, is there is a lot of pressure from other vested parties, politicians etc, to secure convictions for stunt at trial. So I would suspect the bar is quite high, higher than normal for sure, to get the charge dismissed.
That kinda takes away the trial option for those who believe they have a reasonable, but not certain defense.
It has more to do with the seriousness of the charge. Stunt Driving is one of the handful of HTA charges that comes with the possibility of jail time. As far as insurance goes, stunt driving is no better or worse than driving completely hammered. It's the worst of the worst.
The charge doesn't have a set fine like most HTA violations. It has a minimum and maximum penalty (Minimum: $2,000 + fees, 6 demerit points. Maximum: $10,000 + fees, 6 demerit points, Up to 6 months jail time, Suspension up to 2 years). There's a lot of room there to play around with without the need to reduce the charge.
Your right to a trial is never taken away. The problem, in your case specifically, is that you currently have no defense. You were already 30+ over the speed limit when the speed reduced by 20km. There's nothing to indicate there wasn't proper signage according to the regulations. Is it a "cheap" ticket? I guess that depends on who you ask. At the end of the day, it's not a defense though.
I have a problem and not sure what the hell to do about it. Few days ago I was stopped on a street going westbound against blinding afternoon sun following the flow of traffic. I drive a taxi for living in Toronto and have ACZ driver's license. I have a perfect record both for professional as well regular demerit points. I haven't been pulled over as a matter of fact in some 15 years for…
I have recently gone to court for a speeding ticket issued by an OPP officer. As it stood, the officer forgot to sign the ticket. So at my trial, before I made a plea, I pointed this out to the justice of the peace and asked that the ticket be quashed. I was asked to produce my copy of the ticket, which I gave and the JOP then agreed with me and dismissed the case. Before he did so, the…
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…
So here's my situation, any advice would be appreciated.
On June 26, 2013 I received a ticket for 25 over in a 60 zone
In early October I received my notice of trial (Feb 25, 2014)
In early January I sent in my request for disclosure
In late January I received a letter to pick up my disclosure, however when I picked up my disclosure it wasn't typed (I had requested it to be) and I needed…
Is there a legal requirement to report an accident to the insurer?
Scenario
- 2 vehicle accident
- each vehicle has less than $1000 damage
- each vehicle has damage roughly equal to insurance deductible
- a police Accident Report was completed
In this scenario the drivers decided to repair their own damages. But are they legally bound to report the accident and damages to the insurer? ...and out of…
I will be representing my wife at her speeding trial next week. Mostly everything is pretty much run of the mill but since she wasn't speeding we will be having her take the stand. Since this opens up the opportunity for the prosecutor to cross examine, I am just wondering if anyone here knows what kind of questions we should expect from the prosecutor in order to best prepare.
i got pulled over by a cop this morning in my kids's school zone for failure to stop at a stop sign. i am thinking of fighting this ticket, but i noticed that on the ticket itself it only says "disobey stop sign - fail to stop" and there is no mention of the demerit points. a co-worker mentioned to me that a ticket should state how many demerit points i am being docked. i know the Highway Traffic…
Alright, so this happened back awhile ago on June and I haven't appeared in Court. However, I would like some inputs and advice before I get into this battle.
Back in June I got a Speeding Ticket claiming I was going 100km/h on Blackcreek going south towards Lawrence. The Speed Limit there is 70km/h.
At this point of time, it was roughly traffic hour around 4-5PM. Coming off of the Highway, and…
Ive already done searches, read the act as best i can but still haven't read a complete answer. Where in the HTA does it state that the front license plate must be attached to the front bumper? I have it on the passenger sun visor (if ppl remember the old temp permits that taped to the pass side of windshield) i figured that this spot would be the same. However now they have got rid of…
My son was returning from school and was just entering the driveway when another vehicle hit the rear end. Police writes a ticket "fail to yield from private drive" 139(i). He is going to fight this ticket and made an application for disclosure. The trial is next week and he still hasn't received the disclosure.
He checked with the court last month and they said that they will call when disclosure…
i was travelling on the 401 (posted speed 100km/h) in the far left lane, when i caught up to a vehicle going ~110km/h. I patiently waited for the vehicle to move over a lane, but they did not. The vehicle behind me moved to the center lane to pass, but because he was a safe distance behind me, i moved into the middle lane ahead of him to pass the slower moving car. When I accelerated, i…
So I was returning from my honeymoon in Montreal, and was cruising down the 401 just inside the Ontario/Quebec border. I was passing one of the Onroute stations and saw an OPP cruiser. I checked my speed and I was doing 120. A few kilometers up the road the cruiser pulled me over and told me I was clocked doing 132 by the aircraft. I was a little surprised to see the ticket was for the full…
I made a right turn during prohibited hours (7am-6pm) in Toronto. I was ticketed by a COP who was specially watching for that trap.
After I've received the ticket HTA144(9), I discovered one of the seven digits of my license plate was incorrectly written on my ticket. I was thinking about to make a First Attendance at the court office to see the prosecutor for a reduced charge...any advice or…
Have been busy and haven't had much time to follow up on this...
Went to court having not received disclosure (and was not organized enough to apply for a stay), so the trial was adjourned. They photocopied the officer's ticket and notes and provided a log sheet from the plane. I've sent another request for the rest of the disclosure items.
So here's my question -- can an officer amend the ticket…
I am not sure if my case is really a case of " mis-use parking permit" and need some advises on whether i should fight the ticket. Here is what happened:
During the labor day long weekend, I took my parents to diner at a local shopping mall. (my father's hip was broken in 2016 and he's been on wheelchair since, the permit is in his name and I been using the permit to help him for doctor's…
I have a court date coming up where I need to subpoena one of the officers that was present when I got my ticket. The issuing officer didn't include the fact that the second one was present at the time in his report (disclosure) but did give me the second officers name and badge number after the judge told him to do it.
What I'm looking for help with is the process of me getting to…
I got pulled over on a 4 lane section fo Highway 7... Thank god I didn't get a stay at home ticket as well or my car impounded.
Officer clocked me at 156 km/h he decided not to impound my car and give me a 149 km/h since it was my first offence and he said I was polite and respectful. I would give this officer a 5/5 review if I could, very polite and respectful.
Long story short, I was driving from Toronto to Ottawa and around Napanee with my friend in two separated cars, the officer was parked on uturn. He followed us turn his light on and got between us and pulled us over, he told me that i was running at 152 km/h without showing me his LISAR. they suspended my and my friends license and impounded the two cars for 7 days. This was a Friday in January…
I'm unsure on what to do here. I was under the impression that I could request a stay on the day of trial because disclosure was not given to me in an adequate time. I requested disclosure 2x by fax, 5 months ago.
I read on ticketcombat that I had to file a motion 15 days prior to the trial to request a stay of proceedings.
Does anyone else get blinded by fog lights on rural roads? I don't seem to have a problem with them on lighted streets, but the badly aimed fog lights or ones with a poor cutoff really get to me when driving the Escort. I just came back from a 20-minute drive, and every single pickup truck had fog lights on, and forced me to focus on the bottom right of the road. My windshield is clean and…
.
