Page 1 of 1

why no signature and more, 80 in a 50

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:14 pm
by candu238
Back in October of 2016 I was stopped and received a ticket for 80 in a 50 on Avenue Road in Toronto (no speed signage, 5:42am, clear, dry).
No reduction of overage at officers discretion/discrimination.
I'm curious about a few thing and would appreciated some input before taking the stand. Thx

1) the box, "Signature of issuing Provincial Officer", on my ticket, which I assume is a legal document, that box has a typed in name of the officer, not his hand written "Signature". Can this legal document (ticket) be valid without a signature, and by who's authority?
2) Is an officer with a radar trap setup on a private driveway trespassing?
3) On the ticket the "At" box indicates the intersection where I pulled over, not the location of the suspected offence. Valid?
4) When I asked for evidence of the speed, the officer went to his car to get the radar display but returned empty handed and said it, "timed out"
5) When asked if there were complaints from the public about speeding in the area he stated there were "none"
6) When asked about recent accidents in the area he stated there were "none"

Re: why no signature and more, 80 in a 50

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:07 am
by Whenaxis
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.

Re: why no signature and more, 80 in a 50

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:13 am
by jsherk
1) Electronic tickets can have an electronic/typed signature. Handwritten tickets need to be signed, but the officer priting his name would be sufficient.
2) Most likely not, but even if he was trespassing it would not affect your speeding ticket.
3) Yes that is valid. Even in court if the officer says something different than what is on the ticket, the prosecutor can then just ask to have the ticket amended and "fix" the problem during the trial.
4) Officer does not have to show you anything. The evidence that you were speeding is the officers testimony that you were speeding. The speed that you were going will be the officers testimony of what he saw on the radar device. This will all be in the officers notes.
5) Complaints are irrelevent to speeding charge.
6) Accidents are irrelevent to speeding charge.

I would still plead NOT GUILTY and request a trial with the officer present. Once you get your Notice of Trial, then you can request disclosure (copy of officers notes and copy of speed measuring device manual). Once you get the notes, post them back here and we can suggest some defences.

Re: why no signature and more, 80 in a 50

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 4:01 pm
by screeech
If it timed out, it was a laser, not radar...radar does not time out and blank the info...

Re: why no signature and more, 80 in a 50

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 5:00 pm
by Mugwug
Officer is not required to show you the speed measuring device anyway, doing so would be a courtesy. His testimony that the device indicated X speed is adequate.

Re: why no signature and more, 80 in a 50

Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:41 am
by Zatota
At times, I miss the good old days when the officer's inability to show the reading would result in dismissal. I actually once had an officer decide not to give me a ticket at all when he couldn't show me the radar reading. Needless to say, I had asked him really politely.