Page 1 of 1
72 hour vehicle equipment warning
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 2:26 pm
I was driving someone's vehicle as a favour and was stopped in Hamilton, Ontario. I was issued a warning, not a ticket, to replace a headlight (which was burnt out when vehicle was stopped). I was not asked to turn the headlights on (they weren't on, but the running lights were on). It was 9:25 a.m. on a sunny day.
I looked in the console and passed a plastic sleeve with ownership and insurance to papers (recognizable by colour) to the officer without reading them (I did not have my reading glasses on as I was driving). The officer commented on the insurance slip being expired and proceeded back to the cruiser. When he returned, he had the WARNING filled out. Simple. Get it fixed and bring vehicle back to any police station for inspection.
After the repair, the vehicle was taken to a station and it was there that a new officer noticed the information on the warning (different make, year and license plate #) did not match the vehicle. Seems the incorrect ownership/insurance was given to the first office and neither I, my passenger nor the officer noticed the discrepancy.
At that point, we were told that we would have to wait for a summons (when it turns into a charge) and talk to the judge.
Any thoughts? It could end up being my word against the officer's.
Re: 72 hour vehicle equipment warning
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 4:23 pm
If the headlight charge is under section 62 of the Highway Traffic Act, you should be able to have it withdrawn. To the best of my understanding, it's only an offence to have burnt out headlights during hours when they must must be on. As long as it was a half hour past sunrise and the weather was good, there was no offence. As for providing the incorrect insurance/ownership, that technically is an offence even if unintentional. I'm surprised though that the officer didn't notice the discrepancy himself.
Personally I wouldn't worry about it unless you do receive a summons. I'd personally be somewhat surprised if the officer actually went to the trouble of summonsing you to Court for incorrect ownership.