I got one and what my surprise was when I found out it would cost me 4 d.p.
Later on, after thinking it over, well, at regular highway speed it can be really unsafe and dangerous.
No accident. Hwy 401.
Very lightly snowing with thin snow bands between the lanes. Slowly moving with speeds ranging between 10km/h and 20km/h.
I was aiming to change lanes from the left to the middle and then to the right.
After I changed the lane first time, the car behind me turned the high beams.
I have definitely not cut the car off and there was definitely enough distance between us.
I assume his high beams attracted the police officer's attention to me.
At some point my car might have been in a closer proximity to another car during the lane change, but those distances are not anything unusual in a slow traffic.
I truly believe I was not following, tailgating, intimidating in any way the other drivers, nor endangering their lives.
What is the best take in dealing with this ticket in the gray area of stretchy terms?
The fine on the ticket is $110, but what would hurt multiple times is the insurance premium, once the agency finds out.
And in the light of the "Following too closely" they would not care how closely or if it was in a slow traffic.
Thank you for your input.
I have never been through this sort of activity; please pardon my many questions.
- how do I request the disclosure?
- does choosing "trial" close the door to the crown's bargains?
- what is the difference between a) just paying and sucking it up and b) ending up "guilty as charged"?
- what weight do officer's notes have?
Crown will give you the same plea-bargain/deal at an early attendance meeting vs. trial date. No, it will not close the door.
You mean guilty with explanation vs. being found guilty at trial? There is no real difference, there's a possibility the explanation option may reduce the fine.
Without the officer's notes, you don't know what evidence the crown will use against you. Officer realistically will not remember you or the event in another 8-10 months; officer and the crown will be relying heavily on the details written in the notes. They will be using it to secure a conviction.
Your decision as to whether you're going to cut a deal or proceed with the trial will all depend on what's written in the notes.
However, here are a list of fatal errors that could get you off the hook: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic1965.html
I don't think an officer would intentionally forget to write his signature. A verbal warning would have been much more effective.
I will do my research and digging, but I am running out of time.
By the end of this week I have to make a move - the 15 days window is closing.
So if the decision is to go for the fatal error, should I opt for a trial or what?
As I said, I will do my research, but for now I need a straight direction.
I have a lot more general questions, but will only ask specific ones after the due reading.
So now - file for a trial or stand still and ignore the 15 days?
Ignoring the ticket seems to be indeed the right way - as read from other sources too.
At this moment I haven't figured it out yet - the offence get on my driver's record, the insurance uses it as a ground to jack up my premium.
At what point do I take any action to undo the damage?
Here are some things I found doing a quick search, there's a lot more out there:
R. v. Robson  O.J. No. 1826 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
R. v. Shouldice  O.J. No. 2910The signature is the "certification", the act that demonstrates the intention of the provincial offences officer to be bound to the facts alleged in the certificate. Thus, without the signature, the document has not been "certified" and is not a "certificate".
R. v. Bertolucci; R. v. Wu; R. v. Woo; R. v. Young  O.J. No. 4283The court is going to grant your motion to quash. When I look at the Notice of Trial (sic) and I see Officer Lamacraft's signature on the white copy and then, I look at the copy that was given to your client, there is no resemblance in any shape or form to the same signature. I also notice Officer Lamacraft's signature on the summons to the other matter, which is TA 498652. Clearly, the signature that appears on the white copy of the Part I is very close to his, is obviously Officer Lamacraft's signature but there is no resemblance to that signature on the notice that was given to the defendant.
So your motion to quash will be granted. The matter will be quashed.
And in each instance of the two represented people before me today I was shown the offence notices which do not disclose the name of the person; the informant, whose belief and certification is necessary for a valid offence notice.
Now, the actual certificate of offence in each instance is signed by Henry Gotham and properly filled out in all particulars. But it was the decision of Justice of the Peace McCurdy that it was a fatal flaw not to tell the accused driver who was informing or concluding that they had breached the Highway Traffic Act.
failing to put the informant on the offence notice is not something that can properly be cured by particulars at the time of trial. ... I agree with the Justice of the Peace; is to make the notice a useless document for the purposes of the defendant. And the principles of justice would not be served by permitting an amendment to be made of that basic element.