Several months ago, I was on my motorcycle and went to pass two vehicles at the same time. The front car was driving roughly 60kph in an 80kph zone (and had been for 5+ minutes). The car behind it (a uhaul truck) was not going to pass, so I went for it. The driver of the front vehicle, without signalling, turned left and a significant accident ensued. I was taken to hospital and was given no ticket or anything by a police officer, but yesterday, received a summons for Oct 26th to answer for the charge of "drive a vehicle carelessly". To that end, I am confused. I understand, from conversations with friends, that passing multiple vehicles at the same time is apparently illegal (I was not aware, I figured on a straight enough, long enough, open enough road one could pass however many cars they saw fit). But I do not understand why the Crown Attorney would decide that they would press "careless driving charges". I was not careless, and was a fairly responsible motorcycle rider (not all of them are). I guess I'm to call their office, but I guess my questions are: 1.) Why can I not, as when I received a prior ticket (for improper license plate attachment to my car), talk about a plea deal? Tickets have that box to check when you send them in, but I was never given that chance at all. 2.) Assuming at some point I am given the opportunity to plea, is the proper plea attempt to get down to "improper passing"? 3.) (Doubtful members could answer this) Why in the world would they go all the way to careless, when I was in fact within the speed limit or 10 over during the pass. The motorcycle I had was a very fast bike, and yet I was keeping to the laws of the land, why would it be such a significant charge? Any advice, comments, etc would be welcome.
Several months ago, I was on my motorcycle and went to pass two vehicles at the same time. The front car was driving roughly 60kph in an 80kph zone (and had been for 5+ minutes). The car behind it (a uhaul truck) was not going to pass, so I went for it. The driver of the front vehicle, without signalling, turned left and a significant accident ensued.
I was taken to hospital and was given no ticket or anything by a police officer, but yesterday, received a summons for Oct 26th to answer for the charge of "drive a vehicle carelessly". To that end, I am confused. I understand, from conversations with friends, that passing multiple vehicles at the same time is apparently illegal (I was not aware, I figured on a straight enough, long enough, open enough road one could pass however many cars they saw fit). But I do not understand why the Crown Attorney would decide that they would press "careless driving charges". I was not careless, and was a fairly responsible motorcycle rider (not all of them are).
I guess I'm to call their office, but I guess my questions are:
1.) Why can I not, as when I received a prior ticket (for improper license plate attachment to my car), talk about a plea deal? Tickets have that box to check when you send them in, but I was never given that chance at all.
2.) Assuming at some point I am given the opportunity to plea, is the proper plea attempt to get down to "improper passing"?
3.) (Doubtful members could answer this) Why in the world would they go all the way to careless, when I was in fact within the speed limit or 10 over during the pass. The motorcycle I had was a very fast bike, and yet I was keeping to the laws of the land, why would it be such a significant charge?
It is not illegal. With certain offences, you receive a summons to appear in court. You can still plea-bargain, it is just that a court appearance is mandatory. Part 1 tickets (e.g. speeding) have the option of paying out of court. The other reason a summons was issued is that they have 7 days to ticket you, but up to 6 months to issue a summons. Why it wasn't issued earlier... good question. You'll have to get disclosure of the case against you to find out. What I would suggest is contacting a paralegal to discuss the case, as careless driving is a fairly serious charge. It is possible to plead it down, but I would still recommend you at least talk to someone. 6 demerit points, up to $2000 in fines, plus the insurance increase (this can double your premiums) are a lot to be facing alone.
Ex1100 wrote:
passing multiple vehicles at the same time is apparently illegal
It is not illegal.
With certain offences, you receive a summons to appear in court. You can still plea-bargain, it is just that a court appearance is mandatory. Part 1 tickets (e.g. speeding) have the option of paying out of court. The other reason a summons was issued is that they have 7 days to ticket you, but up to 6 months to issue a summons. Why it wasn't issued earlier... good question. You'll have to get disclosure of the case against you to find out.
What I would suggest is contacting a paralegal to discuss the case, as careless driving is a fairly serious charge. It is possible to plead it down, but I would still recommend you at least talk to someone. 6 demerit points, up to $2000 in fines, plus the insurance increase (this can double your premiums) are a lot to be facing alone.
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
Just because your bike is a lot faster then the other cars you still have to be aware of the road. The trailer hauler was looking for his exit.. You pulled out and you didn't even guess what was going on. (you have to take in the big picture as if you were above watching it from above) You were careless. Did you cross a solid line? If so improper lane change ticket would cover it. In the 30+ years I have been riding I only fell off two times (on dirt bikes) Cheers Viper1
Ex1100 wrote:
Several months ago, I was on my motorcycle and went to pass two vehicles at the same time. The front car was driving roughly 60kph in an 80kph zone (and had been for 5+ minutes). The car behind it (a uhaul truck) was not going to pass, so I went for it. The driver of the front vehicle, without signalling, turned left and a significant accident ensued.
I was taken to hospital and was given no ticket or anything by a police officer, but yesterday, received a summons for Oct 26th to answer for the charge of "drive a vehicle carelessly". To that end, I am confused. I understand, from conversations with friends, that passing multiple vehicles at the same time is apparently illegal (I was not aware, I figured on a straight enough, long enough, open enough road one could pass however many cars they saw fit). But I do not understand why the Crown Attorney would decide that they would press "careless driving charges". I was not careless, and was a fairly responsible motorcycle rider (not all of them are).
I guess I'm to call their office, but I guess my questions are:
1.) Why can I not, as when I received a prior ticket (for improper license plate attachment to my car), talk about a plea deal? Tickets have that box to check when you send them in, but I was never given that chance at all.
2.) Assuming at some point I am given the opportunity to plea, is the proper plea attempt to get down to "improper passing"?
3.) (Doubtful members could answer this) Why in the world would they go all the way to careless, when I was in fact within the speed limit or 10 over during the pass. The motorcycle I had was a very fast bike, and yet I was keeping to the laws of the land, why would it be such a significant charge?
Any advice, comments, etc would be welcome.
Just because your bike is a lot faster then the other cars you still have to be aware of the road.
The trailer hauler was looking for his exit..
You pulled out and you didn't even guess what was going on.
(you have to take in the big picture as if you were above watching it from above)
You were careless.
Did you cross a solid line?
If so improper lane change ticket would cover it.
In the 30+ years I have been riding I only fell off two times (on dirt bikes)
Cheers
Viper1
"hang onto your chair when reading my posts
use at your own risk"
It is not illegal. What I would suggest is contacting a paralegal to discuss the case, as careless driving is a fairly serious charge. It is possible to plead it down, but I would still recommend you at least talk to someone. 6 demerit points, up to $2000 in fines, plus the insurance increase (this can double your premiums) are a lot to be facing alone. The police officer who delivered the summons was very nice in explaining the situation to some degree. She said that I should request disclosure (either now, or at this first court date) and seek legal advice (30 minutes free?). She wasn't clear as to whether I was seeking one of those places which says "We'll get your ticket lowered for $300!!" or whether I should seek a serious lawyer (albeit, I'm a little disappointed I should have to). Are there paralegals working specifically on the HTA?
Radar Identified wrote:
Ex1100 wrote:
passing multiple vehicles at the same time is apparently illegal
It is not illegal.
What I would suggest is contacting a paralegal to discuss the case, as careless driving is a fairly serious charge. It is possible to plead it down, but I would still recommend you at least talk to someone. 6 demerit points, up to $2000 in fines, plus the insurance increase (this can double your premiums) are a lot to be facing alone.
The police officer who delivered the summons was very nice in explaining the situation to some degree. She said that I should request disclosure (either now, or at this first court date) and seek legal advice (30 minutes free?). She wasn't clear as to whether I was seeking one of those places which says "We'll get your ticket lowered for $300!!" or whether I should seek a serious lawyer (albeit, I'm a little disappointed I should have to). Are there paralegals working specifically on the HTA?
If someone in front of me slams the brakes and turns I might be a wee bit pissed, especially if there was no signal. 20 under for 5 minutes is: A. Far too slow B. Inconsiderate C. Dangerous to those lined up behind you The fact that it was 5 minutes does not suggest to me that the driver was looking for a road or house, just a slow a$$ old guy(was the driver old/young?). I think you can beat this but I would suggest legal help as well.
You pulled out and you didn't even guess what was going on.
(you have to take in the big picture as if you were above watching it from above)
If someone in front of me slams the brakes and turns I might be a wee bit pissed, especially if there was no signal. 20 under for 5 minutes is:
A. Far too slow
B. Inconsiderate
C. Dangerous to those lined up behind you
The fact that it was 5 minutes does not suggest to me that the driver was looking for a road or house, just a slow a$$ old guy(was the driver old/young?). I think you can beat this but I would suggest legal help as well.
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
1. I only mentioned the speed of the bike to attempt to discern what the Crown Attorney may think ("A motorcyclist, they drive fast"), but then presented the counter argument ("I didn't, I drove safely, at speed limits"). Most motorcyclists realize you have to be 100x more aware on one than in a car. 2. Within the limited scope of a.) what police enforce, and b.) the fact that on a country-ish road there's a lack of enforcement, the fact is that it is a regular occurence for drivers to maintain speeds significantly slower than the limit. At some point, one must assume that they are doing so (whether you decide in 5km, or 50km, or 500km, that's personal choice). I stated 5+ mins at 60kph, so after more than 5km, I assumed they were simply driving slow. The trailer driver (the uhaul) was headed to Niagara Falls (another 40-50k), they were not looking for their exit at all. 3. I did make an incorrect assumption, I don't suspect doing so makes me a careless driver so much as a wrong one. I accept my contribution to the accident. Similarly, one could argue they attempted to turn left without checking their left side and also contributed through an assumption. Not all assumptions lead to accidents, not all accidents are careless. 4. I crossed a dotted + yellow line, my side had the dotted. 5. I've only fallen off my bike once, so technically I'm a 50% better driver than you. ;) (I kid, of course, you're actually 100% worse than me ;) . Keep the shiny up, Viper. Ex.
viper1 wrote:
Just because your bike is a lot faster then the other cars you still have to be aware of the road.
The trailer hauler was looking for his exit..
You pulled out and you didn't even guess what was going on.
(you have to take in the big picture as if you were above watching it from above)
You were careless.
Did you cross a solid line?
If so improper lane change ticket would cover it.
In the 30+ years I have been riding I only fell off two times (on dirt bikes)
Cheers
Viper1
1. I only mentioned the speed of the bike to attempt to discern what the Crown Attorney may think ("A motorcyclist, they drive fast"), but then presented the counter argument ("I didn't, I drove safely, at speed limits"). Most motorcyclists realize you have to be 100x more aware on one than in a car.
2. Within the limited scope of a.) what police enforce, and b.) the fact that on a country-ish road there's a lack of enforcement, the fact is that it is a regular occurence for drivers to maintain speeds significantly slower than the limit. At some point, one must assume that they are doing so (whether you decide in 5km, or 50km, or 500km, that's personal choice). I stated 5+ mins at 60kph, so after more than 5km, I assumed they were simply driving slow. The trailer driver (the uhaul) was headed to Niagara Falls (another 40-50k), they were not looking for their exit at all.
3. I did make an incorrect assumption, I don't suspect doing so makes me a careless driver so much as a wrong one. I accept my contribution to the accident. Similarly, one could argue they attempted to turn left without checking their left side and also contributed through an assumption. Not all assumptions lead to accidents, not all accidents are careless.
4. I crossed a dotted + yellow line, my side had the dotted.
5. I've only fallen off my bike once, so technically I'm a 50% better driver than you. (I kid, of course, you're actually 100% worse than me .
100% agree. It seems like the driver who turned was being inattentive and careless. I'm also surprised that the driver who turned was not charged. Another question is, why is the charge being laid several months after the fact? And Ex1100 - yes, there are paralegals who handle HTA cases. Plenty of them. Some of them post on this forum, and you can also fill out a form at the bottom of this page to get a free no-obligation quote. Talk to each possible representative and see what they have to say, how much they're willing to do, etc.
Reflections wrote:
If someone in front of me slams the brakes and turns I might be a wee bit pissed, especially if there was no signal. 20 under for 5 minutes is:
A. Far too slow
B. Inconsiderate
C. Dangerous to those lined up behind you
100% agree. It seems like the driver who turned was being inattentive and careless. I'm also surprised that the driver who turned was not charged. Another question is, why is the charge being laid several months after the fact?
And Ex1100 - yes, there are paralegals who handle HTA cases. Plenty of them. Some of them post on this forum, and you can also fill out a form at the bottom of this page to get a free no-obligation quote. Talk to each possible representative and see what they have to say, how much they're willing to do, etc.
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
1. I only mentioned the speed of the bike to attempt to discern what the Crown Attorney may think ("A motorcyclist, they drive fast"), but then presented the counter argument ("I didn't, I drove safely, at speed limits"). Most motorcyclists realize you have to be 100x more aware on one than in a car. 2. Within the limited scope of a.) what police enforce, and b.) the fact that on a country-ish road there's a lack of enforcement, the fact is that it is a regular occurence for drivers to maintain speeds significantly slower than the limit. At some point, one must assume that they are doing so (whether you decide in 5km, or 50km, or 500km, that's personal choice). I stated 5+ mins at 60kph, so after more than 5km, I assumed they were simply driving slow. The trailer driver (the uhaul) was headed to Niagara Falls (another 40-50k), they were not looking for their exit at all. 3. I did make an incorrect assumption, I don't suspect doing so makes me a careless driver so much as a wrong one. I accept my contribution to the accident. Similarly, one could argue they attempted to turn left without checking their left side and also contributed through an assumption. Not all assumptions lead to accidents, not all accidents are careless. 4. I crossed a dotted + yellow line, my side had the dotted. 5. I've only fallen off my bike once, so technically I'm a 50% better driver than you. ;) (I kid, of course, you're actually 100% worse than me ;) . Keep the shiny up, Viper. Ex. You never said what the accident was about. I had to guess that you ran into a left turning vehicle.(am I right?) Cheers Viper1
Ex1100 wrote:
viper1 wrote:
Just because your bike is a lot faster then the other cars you still have to be aware of the road.
The trailer hauler was looking for his exit..
You pulled out and you didn't even guess what was going on.
(you have to take in the big picture as if you were above watching it from above)
You were careless.
Did you cross a solid line?
If so improper lane change ticket would cover it.
In the 30+ years I have been riding I only fell off two times (on dirt bikes)
Cheers
Viper1
1. I only mentioned the speed of the bike to attempt to discern what the Crown Attorney may think ("A motorcyclist, they drive fast"), but then presented the counter argument ("I didn't, I drove safely, at speed limits"). Most motorcyclists realize you have to be 100x more aware on one than in a car.
2. Within the limited scope of a.) what police enforce, and b.) the fact that on a country-ish road there's a lack of enforcement, the fact is that it is a regular occurence for drivers to maintain speeds significantly slower than the limit. At some point, one must assume that they are doing so (whether you decide in 5km, or 50km, or 500km, that's personal choice). I stated 5+ mins at 60kph, so after more than 5km, I assumed they were simply driving slow. The trailer driver (the uhaul) was headed to Niagara Falls (another 40-50k), they were not looking for their exit at all.
3. I did make an incorrect assumption, I don't suspect doing so makes me a careless driver so much as a wrong one. I accept my contribution to the accident. Similarly, one could argue they attempted to turn left without checking their left side and also contributed through an assumption. Not all assumptions lead to accidents, not all accidents are careless.
4. I crossed a dotted + yellow line, my side had the dotted.
5. I've only fallen off my bike once, so technically I'm a 50% better driver than you. (I kid, of course, you're actually 100% worse than me .
Keep the shiny up, Viper.
Ex.
You never said what the accident was about.
I had to guess that you ran into a left turning vehicle.(am I right?)
Cheers
Viper1
"hang onto your chair when reading my posts
use at your own risk"
Yes. My bike hit a vehicle as they turned left (without signal) while I was passing them. My friend actually pulled out into the oncoming traffic lane, having checked for oncoming traffic and signal lights, then proceeded to pass the 2 vehicles. I followed suit as sweep (in a 2 person group). The van missed him by near inches (he thought he was gone), but unfortunately, then was perfectly lined up to take out me. I'm not sure if the technicality of who ran into who contributes to liability, I'm curious to find out.
viper1 wrote:
You never said what the accident was about.
I had to guess that you ran into a left turning vehicle.(am I right?)
Cheers
Viper1
Yes. My bike hit a vehicle as they turned left (without signal) while I was passing them. My friend actually pulled out into the oncoming traffic lane, having checked for oncoming traffic and signal lights, then proceeded to pass the 2 vehicles. I followed suit as sweep (in a 2 person group). The van missed him by near inches (he thought he was gone), but unfortunately, then was perfectly lined up to take out me.
I'm not sure if the technicality of who ran into who contributes to liability, I'm curious to find out.
Thank you, the form had gone un-noticed. (Let's hope that my tunnel vision is post crash, or at least only linked to the internet? ;) ). I filled it out, though a friend warned me to ensure that they will attempt to quash it or lower it significantly. Apparently there are some paralegals who will get it dropped by 1 point and then claim their fee, despite possible better standings being available with more work (ie, min work for max pay, which we all do, but not what you wish to hire). Regardless, thank you, I needed to start somewhere, and the advice here has been very helpful.
Radar Identified wrote:
And Ex1100 - yes, there are paralegals who handle HTA cases. Plenty of them. Some of them post on this forum, and you can also fill out a form at the bottom of this page to get a free no-obligation quote. Talk to each possible representative and see what they have to say, how much they're willing to do, etc.
Thank you, the form had gone un-noticed. (Let's hope that my tunnel vision is post crash, or at least only linked to the internet? ). I filled it out, though a friend warned me to ensure that they will attempt to quash it or lower it significantly. Apparently there are some paralegals who will get it dropped by 1 point and then claim their fee, despite possible better standings being available with more work (ie, min work for max pay, which we all do, but not what you wish to hire).
Regardless, thank you, I needed to start somewhere, and the advice here has been very helpful.
Tomorrow is the date, to set a date. I'm sitting in front of the forms for XCopper, who promise me for $678 to get it reduced to 3 Demerits, though I think I can talk to the Crown Attorney and probably get that done on my own. XCopper does what many places do, they say that they prioritize: Waived/0 Demerits/2 Demerits/3 Demerits/Trial, which doesn't really prioritize Waived to them, as long as they get a 3 Demerits quickly, they will have earned their paycheque (5 minutes work is better than 6 hrs). I'm not sure under that condition that I'll choose them until after it comes to the idea that I need to go to court. After examining statements from the other rider, and after going to the place of accident and getting pictures of the 1 km of dashed road, I believe the other driver should have been charged with (just asked a Cop, who said it was) "Left Hand Turn Not In Safety", though I couldn't find that in the HTA itself. Any advice? It seems to me, to pay XC $700, where they have no guarantee or reasoning to reduce the fee below 3 demerits, is as good as just going down there and talking to the Crown Attorney myself. If at that point she doesn't want to deal, then would be the time to seek counsel. I attempted to have XC change their prioritization to Waived/0/Trial, but the paralegal said not to change the form.
Tomorrow is the date, to set a date. I'm sitting in front of the forms for XCopper, who promise me for $678 to get it reduced to 3 Demerits, though I think I can talk to the Crown Attorney and probably get that done on my own. XCopper does what many places do, they say that they prioritize: Waived/0 Demerits/2 Demerits/3 Demerits/Trial, which doesn't really prioritize Waived to them, as long as they get a 3 Demerits quickly, they will have earned their paycheque (5 minutes work is better than 6 hrs). I'm not sure under that condition that I'll choose them until after it comes to the idea that I need to go to court.
After examining statements from the other rider, and after going to the place of accident and getting pictures of the 1 km of dashed road, I believe the other driver should have been charged with (just asked a Cop, who said it was) "Left Hand Turn Not In Safety", though I couldn't find that in the HTA itself.
Any advice? It seems to me, to pay XC $700, where they have no guarantee or reasoning to reduce the fee below 3 demerits, is as good as just going down there and talking to the Crown Attorney myself. If at that point she doesn't want to deal, then would be the time to seek counsel. I attempted to have XC change their prioritization to Waived/0/Trial, but the paralegal said not to change the form.
I have to say sorry.(for my error) You are in the right. The person turning left needs to make sure it is clear to do it. I hope I am not too late to help. Cheers Viper1
Ex1100 wrote:
Tomorrow is the date, to set a date. I'm sitting in front of the forms for XCopper, who promise me for $678 to get it reduced to 3 Demerits, though I think I can talk to the Crown Attorney and probably get that done on my own. XCopper does what many places do, they say that they prioritize: Waived/0 Demerits/2 Demerits/3 Demerits/Trial, which doesn't really prioritize Waived to them, as long as they get a 3 Demerits quickly, they will have earned their paycheque (5 minutes work is better than 6 hrs). I'm not sure under that condition that I'll choose them until after it comes to the idea that I need to go to court.
After examining statements from the other rider, and after going to the place of accident and getting pictures of the 1 km of dashed road, I believe the other driver should have been charged with (just asked a Cop, who said it was) "Left Hand Turn Not In Safety", though I couldn't find that in the HTA itself.
Any advice? It seems to me, to pay XC $700, where they have no guarantee or reasoning to reduce the fee below 3 demerits, is as good as just going down there and talking to the Crown Attorney myself. If at that point she doesn't want to deal, then would be the time to seek counsel. I attempted to have XC change their prioritization to Waived/0/Trial, but the paralegal said not to change the form.
I have to say sorry.(for my error)
You are in the right.
The person turning left needs to make sure it is clear to do it.
I hope I am not too late to help.
Cheers
Viper1
"hang onto your chair when reading my posts
use at your own risk"
Based on what you have said, you both could have been charged. You for pass unsafe, and the other driver for unsafe turn. Careless driving is often laid by the police as almost all plea to something lessor. To further demoralize you, The fault Determination Rules, found under the Insurance Act specifies who is at fault in specific collisions. In your case, you passing multiple vehicles, the Rules state you are 100% at fault. Police do not find fault or declare who is at fault. The Rules do that. The police issue tickets for things done wrong. The Provincial Offences Act permits you (any person) to lay an information. You could go before a JP and tell him/her what happened and the other driver could be charged for unsafe turn. Do not plea to anything unless all witness for the prosecution are there. Bring your friend to say that he passed right before you, so the driver should have noticed him and looked for you
Based on what you have said, you both could have been charged. You for pass unsafe, and the other driver for unsafe turn. Careless driving is often laid by the police as almost all plea to something lessor.
To further demoralize you, The fault Determination Rules, found under the Insurance Act specifies who is at fault in specific collisions. In your case, you passing multiple vehicles, the Rules state you are 100% at fault. Police do not find fault or declare who is at fault. The Rules do that. The police issue tickets for things done wrong. The Provincial Offences Act permits you (any person) to lay an information. You could go before a JP and tell him/her what happened and the other driver could be charged for unsafe turn.
Do not plea to anything unless all witness for the prosecution are there. Bring your friend to say that he passed right before you, so the driver should have noticed him and looked for you
The Fight Continues.... My court date is August 3, 2011, just under a month away. I had been given the court date since February, and have largely been doing other things in life. My paralegal had, for all intents and purposes, not contacted me about this until about 2 weeks ago (I am slightly displeased, but herein will lie the question). It was suggested by numerous websites that I apply for an 11b Constitutional Challenge, since the accident date is May 21, 2010, the first court date Oct 2010, and the actual trial date is Aug 2011. That leaves it 14-15 months since the accident date. All the delays were to have the appropriate disclosure (which wasn't provided until January). However, my paralegal has suggested that it is a waste of time, that it will take him a day to prepare such a briefing. It appears a simple form, and I am only arguing that it has been 14 months since the accident, that I appeared in court on October, November, December, January (got disclosure) and February (to set trial date and say we had disclosure), and that I have made no motions to slow down the court date. So 10 months since the first court date, and 14 months since the accident is too long. (It is possible the JP will say no, and just move on with the case, I accept that). But I am surprised that while several prominent websites have listed this as a fairly good tactic, and the St Catharines Provincial Court phone-answerer (I know, take her for what's she's worth) was reading me back the dates I had attended court, the accident date, and said it was actually a fairly likely thing to win. So really, my question is: Is my paralegal incorrect? Has anyone filed one of these and knows what happens when the court session begins, and I have asked for this? Is it really the "days work" for the paralegal, or is it a simple up/down type vote on whether they feel it took too long?
The Fight Continues....
My court date is August 3, 2011, just under a month away. I had been given the court date since February, and have largely been doing other things in life. My paralegal had, for all intents and purposes, not contacted me about this until about 2 weeks ago (I am slightly displeased, but herein will lie the question). It was suggested by numerous websites that I apply for an 11b Constitutional Challenge, since the accident date is May 21, 2010, the first court date Oct 2010, and the actual trial date is Aug 2011. That leaves it 14-15 months since the accident date. All the delays were to have the appropriate disclosure (which wasn't provided until January).
However, my paralegal has suggested that it is a waste of time, that it will take him a day to prepare such a briefing. It appears a simple form, and I am only arguing that it has been 14 months since the accident, that I appeared in court on October, November, December, January (got disclosure) and February (to set trial date and say we had disclosure), and that I have made no motions to slow down the court date. So 10 months since the first court date, and 14 months since the accident is too long. (It is possible the JP will say no, and just move on with the case, I accept that). But I am surprised that while several prominent websites have listed this as a fairly good tactic, and the St Catharines Provincial Court phone-answerer (I know, take her for what's she's worth) was reading me back the dates I had attended court, the accident date, and said it was actually a fairly likely thing to win.
So really, my question is: Is my paralegal incorrect? Has anyone filed one of these and knows what happens when the court session begins, and I have asked for this? Is it really the "days work" for the paralegal, or is it a simple up/down type vote on whether they feel it took too long?
I find it weird/unusual about disclosure as usually a summons is different from a ticket, in that the complete brief (disclosure) was available on your first October court date.
I find it weird/unusual about disclosure as usually a summons is different from a ticket, in that the complete brief (disclosure) was available on your first October court date.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
It's not just filling out the form though for a paralegal or lawyer. An unrepresented person may be able to get away with that but the paralegal will have to write a factum outlining the law on the issue, the facts of your case, and the application on the law to the facts. In addition they have to prepare affadavits for you and themselves, plus a book of authorities for all the cases they want to reference. Then they have to print multiple copies, bind them, make a trip to the courthouse, and serve a copy on them. The fact that yours is simple is probably why it would take ONLY a day. Also, it's more complicated than just the amount of time since the charge. Some of that time can be counted as intake or neutral time, which means it doesn't count in the calculation. Finally, you might wonder why paralegals have to go through all this trouble if unrepresented people don't. The answer is because they know how to and it is the rules of practice. Those rules are sometimes relaxed for unrepresented individuals to ensure justice, but the fact remains that without a factum and oral argument, most challenges by unrepresented peopke are unsuccessful. Reason being that you cant rely on the judge to know the law and how it applies to your particular case, you have to present it to them in a clear and convincing manner.
It's not just filling out the form though for a paralegal or lawyer. An unrepresented person may be able to get away with that but the paralegal will have to write a factum outlining the law on the issue, the facts of your case, and the application on the law to the facts. In addition they have to prepare affadavits for you and themselves, plus a book of authorities for all the cases they want to reference. Then they have to print multiple copies, bind them, make a trip to the courthouse, and serve a copy on them. The fact that yours is simple is probably why it would take ONLY a day.
Also, it's more complicated than just the amount of time since the charge. Some of that time can be counted as intake or neutral time, which means it doesn't count in the calculation.
Finally, you might wonder why paralegals have to go through all this trouble if unrepresented people don't. The answer is because they know how to and it is the rules of practice. Those rules are sometimes relaxed for unrepresented individuals to ensure justice, but the fact remains that without a factum and oral argument, most challenges by unrepresented peopke are unsuccessful. Reason being that you cant rely on the judge to know the law and how it applies to your particular case, you have to present it to them in a clear and convincing manner.
I got ticket for failing to stop at stop sign in Toronto. i heard that the police officer must see the stop line, if there is one, from where he was sitting. That is exactly my case, Is it a strong case? If so do i need a picture to show that there is a stop line and a picture to show that he could not see the stop line from where he was sitting?
I got a ticket, Disobey stop sign, sec 136.1.a on dec 6th
I made a left in an intersection and was pulled over by a police officer in an unmarked car who had been sitting down the road. A classic fishing hole situation. I was genuinely surprised when he stopped me and told me I went through a stop sign without even slowing down. I know to shut up and be polite and take the ticket. I…
Yesterday morning, I rear-ended someone. I was going the speed limit. The sun was directly in front of me and it blinded my windshield and my eyes. At the same time, the person in front of me stopped/slowed down (also due to the sun). I started to slow down but didn't stop and I hit them since I couldn't see anything. I was not driving too close initially. I…
I was driving in the county at night and hit a limousine stretched out side ways across the road. The limo had its lights on and had side lighting as well. The police officer charged me with careless driving because it was "fully lit up".
It took me to the next day to figure out what had happened - what I remember made no sense. What I had run across was a "false visual reference" illusion.
I was on hwy 37 trying to make my girlfriends ganadmas mass and I live an hour away and I had an hour to get there so I was going fast but not 50 over untill some idiot got on my tail soo close that I was to concentrated on him that I kept going faster untill I got pulled over at 147 on an 80 km hwy.
I alreaddy lost 3 points and this time was just the…
Hello, got stopped today for rolling a stop sign. Ticket says failure to stop, but quotes hta 1361b.
Doesn't 1361b mean failure to yield?
Is this a fatal error? Or could it be amended at trial. How can I prepare a defence if I don't know if I'm defending the failure to stop or the failure to yield?
After he was providing me with a ticket for failure to obey to the stop sign (I am pretty sure I stopped but less than 3 seconds recommended by my driver ed. instructor), I know everybody say that..as an excuse.
Then he stopped me again to return the documents.
Any advice and feed back would be really appreciated.
Can you get evidence for whether someone had an advanced green at an intersection? My dad was making a right turn on a red (after stopping) into a plaza parking lot. He got hit by someone making a left turn from the opposite lane. The driver told the officer called to the collision that he had an advance green. My dad said he came out of nowhere which makes me…
So i was driving on Eglinton Avenue East near Rosemount Ave.
The school bus was on the the curb on the opposite side of the road while i was travelling on the middle lane of the three-laned Eglinton Avenue East (five lanes apart plus a raised median island seperating the traffic)
I could not see the school bus as my view of the bus was being obstructed by the cars in front of me and on my left hand…
Lots of good information on getting disclosure from the Crown here.
Now, I am just wondering if I will be relying upon evidence of my own at trial... do I have to voluntarily send this material to the Crown in a reasonable time before the trial, or only if they request disclosure from me?
This morning I had an exam for university. I was studying the entire night and i wanted to catch like maybe 1-2 hours of sleep before the exam so i went to sleep. I woke up like 5 hrs after and realize that I was about to miss my exam. I still could have made it so I asked my dad for his car since I was in a huge rush and he gave it to me.
I went on the highway and I was going at 135 km/h but…
the police officer was in in the opesite oncumming lane he was fallowing another car so close that i was not even able to see his cruser till he was buy he said that i was going 111 in a 80 he said he hade me on radar he only asked for me drivers licencs and never asked for my insurence so on the ticket there no insurence dose enyone think i can beat this i wana take it to cort becuse he was…
Hi I have a couple questions so I'll explain my situation and any advice would be appreciated.
Can't remember exact date so lets call it some time in 2008 I got a fine for $5000.00 for driving without in insurance. I never paid the fine and in 2012 I was pulled over and the officer asked to see my license. Although I had it on me I figured it would be under suspension for the unpaid fine from…
Alright, so I did something really stupid the other day, I was driving down a country road and wanted to hit the curves so I passed 3 cars at once, inadvertently making it up to very much past 50 over (80 limit)... Much to my chagrin there was a cop coming in the opposite direction who immediately skidded on the gravel shoulder and who I thought was 100% going to turn around and pull me over,…
Anyone know how backed this courthouse is? I submitted my ticket for trial at the end of August, and still no letter. Im scared it got lost in the mail, can i call the courthouse and find out my courtdate? Or would i have to go in personally?
I recently received a ticket for failure to use low beams - while following - Ticket was issued Sec 168 (
- it was on the 401 and no one was within 500 meters of me, I was warning a oncoming vehicle that there was an officer hiding (which is not illegal or I could not find a law against it) it was a police vehicle travelling at very high rate of speed in the opposite direction with no lights on…
I received a warning letter from MTO for a 2pts ticket.What happened is that the police officer issued a "unsafe left turn" and then changed the ticket to "failed to signal" at the scene, but she submitted both tickets!!! And I !!!ONLY!!! received the latter ticket from her(I requested trial for "failed to signal"). I recently received notice from MTO that I'm convicted for "unsafe left turn".
Hello everyone! I was given a ticket for using a hand-held communication device while driving. It was 3 am, I was at a stop light and the cop saw me with the my phone in my hand. I told him i was just checking the time on it. I received the notes a few weeks ago ill copy them down below. Any help is appreciated although i believe there's no hope for me. The cop recorded me saying what phone i…
I got pulled over about 15 or so days ago the court till this date has not received the summons what is the legal time period that the court has to follow to accept the summons from the office court says its 15 days is the legal timeframe the officer has to serve it on the court
I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
Last Friday I was pulled over by an OPP motorcycle cop who informed me I was going 134. I was on the SB 404, I did see him parked under a bridge and when I passed him he was not on his bike.
I'm hoping to get some insight for a defense in this case.
I was in lane 1 and I had a car in front of me, and a car behind me, also there was a car speeding down Lane 3 passing everyone and moved quickly into…
(I kid, of course, you're actually 100% worse than me 
