Just as a point of interest, when there is no speed limit posted in built-up areas in Ontario, the default speed limit is 50km/h (on country roads, it's 80km/h). Also, some officers are nice enough to use their discretion on the roadside and reduce the charge on the ticket, but they are not required to do so. Even if they do reduce the charge and you choose to dispute the ticket, the charge can be amended up to the original speed at trial if the evidence supports it.
1) The name of the officer is sufficient. If there was no name or signature of the issuing officer, then that may be a point of inquiry.
2) The short answer is no, it is not trespassing. The long answer: the Trespass to Property Act
provides implied permission for anyone to have access from the street to private property all the way up to any door or entrance, unless there are signs that are posted that specifically say "No Trespassing" or if the property owner asks a person to leave. Also, the Highway Traffic Act
considers the "lateral property lines" (property to the side) of a roadway to be part of the road itself, so technically speaking, the officer was conducting enforcement on the road itself.
3) The location can be the general vicinity of the offence. If the ticket had just said "Avenue Road" or even just "City of Toronto", it would still be valid. Again, if there was no location, however, then that may be a point of inquiry*
4) You can request for disclosure from the prosecutor to see information relating to the testing of the radar device and notes of the officer relating to your speed based on the radar device. The police officer is not required to show you the radar device. But you can try to cast doubt on the reliability of the device and the officer's testimony by bringing this up, if you have evidence that the officer said the device timed out when you asked to see it.
5) and 6) The police officer can conduct traffic enforcement anywhere, regardless of public complaints or accidents.
* A final item to point out, even if there were errors or omissions on the ticket (i.e. missing or incorrect location), it has become more difficult to argue that the ticket is invalid, thanks to the recent decision from the Court of Appeal of Ontario, York (Regional Municipality) v. Wadood
(http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/20 ... nca45.html
). The decision basically says any minor errors on a ticket is not enough for a defendant to be misled. The defendant must have been misled or prejudiced by any errors on the ticket in order for the court to consider it.