I would definitely try to postpone this trial no matter WHAT defense you should choose, just in case you lose. You do NOT want 3 tickets within 3 years on your record... You insurance company will absolutely lay you to waste!
Attend on your trial date. If the officer doesn't show, motion for dismissal. If the officer DOES show, motion for a continuance (need more time to seek legal council). When negotiating a new trial date, make sure it's at least 3 years AFTER your 1st speeding ticket.
I don't mind it at all. I go prepared to the best of my abilities all the time.lawmen wrote:Bears a cop. He doesn't want people to SEE exactly what the law says. He'd rather have you rely on peoples thoughts and opinions to try and win your case.
Picking apart words is for lawyers (defence, crowns etc..) and for them to argue or do whatever they want to deal with.
I do believe we can learn from legal perspectives (I have greatly), but to jam every post with legal jargon is confusing for most on a general forum. A toned down version might allow the point to be made so that people remain interested.
Perhaps another section of this forum could be made titled "The Legal Perspective" for all the ins and outs of the laws.
I grew up where honesty was paramount, owned up to my mistakes, learned from it and moved on. I did not snivel and try to worm my way out of things when I was wrong. Kind of like a hockey game, got a penalty, dealt with it!
Trials must be held with 8 to 10 months. Any longer than that, provided the delay was not your fault or at your request, then you can apply for a stay.generalinq wrote:Exactly. That's the thing I find confusing. Trying to read between the lines in all the information that is posted and trying to make sense of it all.
ticketcombat has been very helpful as well. I may just use the bilingual sign defense.
What's the current turnaround time for a trial date in Toronto currently? If it's 1 year, can I motion a stay?
Any delay at your request or at your fault is not included in the 8-10 month delay time. In other words, if it's been 15 months and 8 months of the delay was at your request then its really only been a 7 month delay.
Some justices claim because the system is backlogged a longer delay on the crowns part is okay.
BS. I say.
Many courthouses are only used from 10 am to 4 pm. They could hold night court. Weekends court can also be held. So simple soultions are available to the government.
The government keeps passing new laws which help jam up the court with more trials. They hired more cops which means more charges being laid and even more trials.
Therefore, itÃ¢Â€Â™s also there obligation to hire more judges and hold more court time because itÃ¢Â€Â™s there own fault for jamming up the courts with petty cases.
I'm not trying to worm my way out. I know I made a right turn where I wasn't supposed to but didn't actually realize I was doing it (didn't see the sign). Exactly as someone pointed out that you are trying to focus on the road where pedestrians are crossing and cars are. Now maybe if I had been from the area I would have known immediately that turning at that intersection was not allowed. Not being from the area is no excuse I realize. However I would like to book a trial date next week and get disclosure and see what happens. Worse case, I don't show for the trail and end up getting a notice in the mail to pay with some added administrative charges on it (that I would have wasted on parking and gas to drive down for the trial anyhow).
Does the prosecutor have to show the actual certified bylaw for that intersection in his disclosure? If not, I can argue that I did not get proper disclosure correct in the event that I did actually go to the trial.
And although s. 9(2) of the POA applies to a person who does not wish to dispute a charge, I don't think they really have to provide you a copy of the by-law if there is one because s. 9(2) states;
Where conviction without proof of by-law
(2) Where a defendant is deemed to not wish to dispute a charge under subsection (1) in respect of an offence under a by-law of a municipality, the justice shall enter a conviction under clause (1) (a) without proof of the by-law that creates the offence if the certificate of offence is complete and regular on its face.
- bilingual sign defense doesn't appear to sound to convincing and iffy
- bylaw forget it now that I'm told it won't hold.
- strict liability maybe but I'm told a no turn will be treated as an absolute.
My only chance in hell is if the cop doesn't show. Ha
But first, a pep talk. I know it can get intimidating. Remember to stick to your guns. As long as you show you are sincere and honest and VERY RESPECTFUL of the court and the witness (the cop) you'll do just fine. The court also has a duty to explain to you what's going on. Clearly state if you don't understand something. The justice will guide you through the process.
Take a picture of the sign if you do come to Toronto. It can't hurt.
When to make the bilingual argument
Basically the cop will get on the stand the the prosecutor will question him. Then it is your turn to question him. You can ask him what the sign says exactly. Make sure he indicates that it is in English and it mentions certain times of day.
Then the justice will ask you if you have anything to say. At this point you pull out the R. v. Myers case and submit it. Make two copies, one for the justice and one for the prosecutor and give it to them. You say, the sign has to be bilingual, it is not. Therefore it is not valid. You can use the arguments on my site as well.
important note This is why I'm posting a reply to your PM: You should NOT get on the stand to testify when you bring up the bilingual argument. When you testify you are recalling what happened that day. When you make the bilingual argument it has nothing to do with what you did that day. It's about the by-law.
When you testify, the Crown will challenge any notes you have or notes you read from on the stand. They will dismiss all of it if you read from them ON THE STAND. Don't get up there. Make the argument first from where you are seated. Clearly state to the justice that you do not want to testify at this time but rather want to raise an argument.
Next, decide if you want to testify Personally I wouldn't do this since you could be cross-examined by the prosecutor who will try to trip you up. But you can do this if you want. After making the argument, indicate to the judge that you want to testify. At this point, testify that you are a careful driver, there are a lot of distractions at that intersection, you always obey signs, etc. You are testifying to you credibility, your honesty, integrity, and so on.
Summation When the judge asks you to sum up mention the above, the sign is not valid and you are an honest person who would have obeyed the sign anyway if you had seen it.
You have nothing to lose by making this argument. Think about it. What other defence do you have?generalinq wrote:- bilingual sign defense doesn't appear to sound to convincing and iffy
There must be a bylaw regulating traffic at that intersection. They can't just put up a sign. You are not charged against a sign. You are charged against a bylaw. And yes, they must provide a certified copy of it to you under disclosure (don't ask for it). When they don't, ask for a dismissal. Be aware that the prosecutor might try to hand you a copy at court. Don't accept it! Argue imporoper disclosure instead.generalinq wrote:bylaw forget it now that I'm told it won't hold.
This gets very complicated and I don't think you need to worry about this as long as you make the bilingual argument.generalinq wrote:strict liability maybe but I'm told a no turn will be treated as an absolute.
You have pretty good odds in TO.generalinq wrote:My only chance in hell is if the cop doesn't show. Ha
This fizzle may have settled on this one but I want to put in my two cents. I believe the point of this site is to help people with their tickets. That's why I post here more than anywhere else. There are other sites for legal discussions. The legal "rants" we have (yes they go off topic) originate from a specific problem or ticket. In that sense they are relevant to the topic. It's also because you can't fight a ticket solely arguing against the cop. You will loose. The legal arguments are the only way to win for a lot of situations: speeding, stop signs, seatbelts, etc. I read other discussion boards where short, armchair advice is dispensed. They are of no help. This is one of the reasons why I created my site, I couldn't find any help on line other than FYST which is out of date.Proper1 wrote:Well said, HB. I had to turn down my hearing aid from all that shouting, but it might have served to catch the attention of an administrator?hwybear wrote:Perhaps another section of this forum could be made titled "The Legal Perspective"for all the ins and outs of the laws.
In legal cases, judges post the relevant sections of the act for convenience, to indicate which version they are considering and because it is a printed decision, they can't link to anything. But other than me, I don't think anyone else appreciates it on this site. We should be linking, not posting. That may solve the problem and keep our focus on the topic at hand. Short and pithy, and yes you can still sit in an armchair
I post the provisions at the bottom of my messages, usally, or in the middle of my message when I feel it's required. I do all this not just for the current reader, but for future readers dealing with the same issue.
The mod is free to delete anything they feel is inappropriate.
What I started to do, and will try and do more of, is when a certain issue arises, I will start a thread in the general section discussing the provision and then when a new person requests help with an issue already discussed, I can send them to that link in the general section instead of cut and pasting the info that was already discussed in someone elseÃ¢Â€Â™s thread.
Hopefully this pleases everyone.
For example, the French Language defence argument has come up several times in several threads. I think it would be helpful if we have this topic covered in detail in one thread and post it in the general section. Then we can simply link the reader to that thread when need be in stead of explaining it over and over again.
The French Lanaguag Service Act defence is the most potent defence in all of Ontario. I canÃ¢Â€Â™t even believe it exists given how easy it is to defeat a ticket using it.
If I feel that the post is off-topic, I will edit it. For future reference, I side with others who mentioned it, thinking it might be best to separate the actual post (What you write) from the law exerpts. Whoever needs to read all of the section may still easily do so at their leisure. Please use quote whenever you post the actual law. You can still bold or italicize (or both) whatever sections/keywords are most appropriate. Then the post will look neater, somewhat like
law supporting argument
law supporting argument
relevant law section
relevant law section
This is my only beef with lawmen's (sometimes) long posts, as it is sometimes hard to separate one from the other at a glance. I generally find that the sections he brings up are relevant to the discussion.
Yes, the forum is mostly to help people fight traffic tickets, but it is not the only purpose of the forum. We want also to discuss the law, new and old, find imperfections (cough, cough), explore new ideas, and help people in general, not just their traffic ticket. We do not want to alienate anyone (except spammers), and have an adult dialogue about the issues we bring up to the table.
[QUOTE] (or [QUOTE="OHTA 172(1)"])
text of law
If unsure of your code, use the "Preview" button. If there is interest, I will make a BBCode tutorial thread.
We use standard BBCode, and html may also be used
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"
www.OHTA.ca & www.OntarioHighwayTrafficAct.com