Speeding and fail to have insurance card.

Moderators: Reflections, admin, Radar Identified, hwybear, bend, Decatur

Spanky
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined:

Speeding and fail to have insurance card.

Unread post by Spanky »

I was driving my bosses van and was pulled over and charged with 105kmh in a 90kmh zone and fail to have insurance card. The officer actually caught me doing 119kmh but lowered it(this is not noted on the ticket). I thought I was doing 100-110kmh. He was nice and I appreciate him lowering the amount. Of course I still don't want any insurance increases nor a mark on my driving record.

I don't really care about the fine but am wondering if there is any way out of the convictions. These are my first in 5 years of driving. I've never even had a warning for speeding before, of course he doesn't know that.

There is one mistake on the tickets, he listed the van I was driving as a 2009 when it is actually a 2001. I'm not sure if that type of mistake really matters though.

Also I don't normally drive this van, I just took over because my friend and coworker was too tired to drive. Only after I got the ticket and the cop mentioned how fast I was going did we realized the speedo was off because of the tires the boss had put on the van and that he had forgot to put in the current insurance card.

My father has run a part time ticket business in the past and told me to talk to the prosecutor about the resolution process and that she may offer to drop the tickets if I explain the situation and make a donation to a local hospital charity.

I'm running out of time to pick an option, I have until wed the 12th of November. Should I pick the trial option to give myself some time to talk to the prosecutor?


viper1
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 502
Joined:

Unread post by viper1 »

I have not been to traffic court for over 10 years.
The last time I was there you had to::;;

After they call your name and you go up and say here your honour.

You object!!
make it stick.
Then say you never had a 2009 car.

You have to it as soon as you have said you are there or it does not work.

What happens is they loose jurisdiction.


Cheers
Viper
"hang onto your chair when reading my posts
use at your own risk"


User avatar
BelSlySTi
Member
Member
Posts: 222
Joined:

Unread post by BelSlySTi »

Fight it, you have nothing to loose whatsoever!
The officer would know all offences you have been convicted of, from your the very first to the latest, I am not sure about warnings if they appear on your record or not!
I am betting the 2009 is the year the sticker expires on the plates!
hopefully I am wrong!
[img]http://i328.photobucket.com/albums/l352/toastedwhitebread/Untitled-TrueColor-03.jpg[/img]


Spanky
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined:

Unread post by Spanky »

BelSlySTi wrote:Fight it, you have nothing to loose whatsoever!
The officer would know all offences you have been convicted of, from your the very first to the latest, I am not sure about warnings if they appear on your record or not!
I am betting the 2009 is the year the sticker expires on the plates!
hopefully I am wrong!
Ah that's probably it.

It lists, plate number, year, province, make.

I thought it was talking about the year of the van, not the plate.


lawmen
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 256
Joined:
Location: Planet X

Unread post by lawmen »

If you do nothing and the ticket is regular on its face, the justice can enter a conviction without your presence. If the ticket is not regular on its face the justice must quash the proceeding.

If you check off the box that you intend to plead not guilty and request a trail, then you don’t show up, or, you do show up, and the ticket is not regular on its face, the justice can fix it at trial and convict you, despite any errors on the ticket.

You say you were going 119kph in a 90. The ticket only says you were going 105. That’s a lie.

Once the justice convicts without your presence, you can appeal it and explain it was not regular on its face because you were not going 105 in a 90. You were going 119 and this is why you never responded to the ticket.

You can argue the cop mislead the court by submitting fabricated evidence in breach of the criminal code and POA.

Doesn’t mean you’re going to win, but this is something you could try. Use your own judgment.

You say you have until Nov. 12 to submit your response. On what date did you get the ticket?

Also, did the cop indicate the sections of the HTA and Insurance Act that were breached, or just write in speeding, fail to have insurance card?
Without Justice there's JUST US


Spanky
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined:

Unread post by Spanky »

I'm not sure what you mean by regular on it's face?

Also I've read that as soon as you admit you were over the limit they can charge you with speeding, and that it doesn't matter if the cop put the right speed on the ticket. As soon as you admit you were over your done.

I received the tickets on the 29th of October.

The cop did specify the acts of the offenses.


lawmen
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 256
Joined:
Location: Planet X

Unread post by lawmen »

If a ticket has an error on it the ticket is not regular on its face.

The ticket has to be filled out correctly.

If you don't go to court and it's not filled out correctly, the justice cannot fix it.

If you go to court and it's not filled out correctly, the justice can fix it.

Did the cop put in the fine amount?

If so, what is the amount he entered?

And then did he include the total payable?

If so, what is the amount he entered?
Without Justice there's JUST US


lawmen
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 256
Joined:
Location: Planet X

Unread post by lawmen »

You say you got the ticket on Oct. 29. You say you have to make a decision by Nov. 12.

You have 15 days to respond. Oct. 29, the day you received the ticket doesn't count. The days begin on Oct. 30. From Oct. 30 to Nov. 12 is not 15 days. Weekends and holidays are not included. Nov. 11 is a government holiday.

If the dates you provided are correct, you were not given a proper 15 days to respond.

You were only given 9 days.
Without Justice there's JUST US


Spanky
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined:

Unread post by Spanky »

lawmen wrote:You say you got the ticket on Oct. 29. You say you have to make a decision by Nov. 12.

You have 15 days to respond. Oct. 29, the day you received the ticket doesn't count. The days begin on Oct. 30. From Oct. 30 to Nov. 12 is not 15 days. Weekends and holidays are not included. Nov. 11 is a government holiday.

If the dates you provided are correct, you were not given a proper 15 days to respond.

You were only given 9 days.
I'm not saying the cop wrote down when I had to respond. I'm counting the 15 days that the ticket and envelope say I have to respond, and it doesn't say 15 business days so that means 15 days total to me.


User avatar
ticketcombat
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 486
Joined:
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Unread post by ticketcombat »

Spanky, you said the boss didn't put insurance in the van AND that you are concerned about your insurance going up. Why didn't you just provide your insurance as proof that you are insured?

You also mentioned the tires affecting the speedo?? There may be a "defence of causation" in that but you would need a mechanic to step up to the plate for you and testify that it contributed to the violation.
Fight Your Ticket!


Spanky
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined:

Unread post by Spanky »

ticketcombat wrote:Spanky, you said the boss didn't put insurance in the van AND that you are concerned about your insurance going up. Why didn't you just provide your insurance as proof that you are insured?

You also mentioned the tires affecting the speedo?? There may be a "defence of causation" in that but you would need a mechanic to step up to the plate for you and testify that it contributed to the violation.
Why would I have my insurance on me while driving his van? I keep my insurance papers in my jeep, doesn't everyone?

I was driving his van and he forgot to put the latest insurance card in with the ownership.

As for the speedo thing, I was just going to use that as an explanation, I doubt it would get me off completely.

Either way, today is my last day to make any decisions, should I just ask for the trial option for now to get my *EDIT* together? I can still plead guilty and just pay the fine if I end up not wanting to bother with court right?


User avatar
ticketcombat
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 486
Joined:
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Unread post by ticketcombat »

Spanky wrote: Why would I have my insurance on me while driving his van? I keep my insurance papers in my jeep, doesn't everyone?
I keep my insurance in my wallet in case I drive somebody else's vehicle. An insurance company will issue two sets of pink slips, keep one in the car and one in your wallet. You can ask for more copies if you have multiple drivers in your family.

I have a copy of the ownership in the car, not the original. I'm not sure if that's entirely sufficient proof. I believe rental cars have the plate portion in the vehicle but only a photocopy of the vehicle portion. Can anyone confirm whether a photocopy will do? I think the plate portion must be in the car with the validation stickers or a "true copy", but not the vehicle portion??? (see HTA (7))
Spanky wrote:today is my last day to make any decisions, should I just ask for the trial option for now to get my *EDIT* together? I can still plead guilty and just pay the fine if I end up not wanting to bother with court right?
That's correct although there has been some discussion about whether the set fine still applies (see http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic541.html). However, if you request a trial and don't show up, they will charge you the set fine + $10 court costs.

Spanky, can you cite which Act and section you were charged under for the "fail to provide proof of insurance"?
Fight Your Ticket!


lawmen
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 256
Joined:
Location: Planet X

Unread post by lawmen »

I had an incident once where I was photo copying my licence. I forgot my licence in a copy machine. I was stopped by the cops hours later and couldn't produce my licence. I did however produced a photo copy. The cop said it was unacceptable, but did not charge me as he believed my story, which was true.

This was dealing with a licence and not ownership, though, so I don't know if a photo copy of ownership is valid.
Without Justice there's JUST US


Spanky
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined:

Unread post by Spanky »

ticketcombat wrote:
Spanky wrote: Why would I have my insurance on me while driving his van? I keep my insurance papers in my jeep, doesn't everyone?
I keep my insurance in my wallet in case I drive somebody else's vehicle. An insurance company will issue two sets of pink slips, keep one in the car and one in your wallet. You can ask for more copies if you have multiple drivers in your family.

I have a copy of the ownership in the car, not the original. I'm not sure if that's entirely sufficient proof. I believe rental cars have the plate portion in the vehicle but only a photocopy of the vehicle portion. Can anyone confirm whether a photocopy will do? I think the plate portion must be in the car with the validation stickers or a "true copy", but not the vehicle portion??? (see HTA (7))
Spanky wrote:today is my last day to make any decisions, should I just ask for the trial option for now to get my *EDIT* together? I can still plead guilty and just pay the fine if I end up not wanting to bother with court right?
That's correct although there has been some discussion about whether the set fine still applies (see http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic541.html). However, if you request a trial and don't show up, they will charge you the set fine + $10 court costs.

Spanky, can you cite which Act and section you were charged under for the "fail to provide proof of insurance"?
I think I will put one of the insurance slips in my wallet but I'm not sure if that would have covered me in his van. It would cover me but what about this van and liability?

Also yes he did cite the act.

Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act. 3(1)


I looked it up:
3. (1) An operator of a motor vehicle on a highway shall have in the motor vehicle at all times,

(a) an insurance card for the motor vehicle; or

(b) an insurance card evidencing that the operator is insured under a contract of automobile insurance,

and the operator shall surrender the insurance card for reasonable inspection upon the demand of a police officer. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.25, s. 3 (1).
Looks to me that section (b) says that I would have been fine with a copy of my insurance. Good to know.


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined:
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Unread post by hwybear »

One must be able to surrender the permit for that vehicle. Permit includes the vehicle portion and plate portion. The back side of the permit is where the corresponding validation from the validation sticker must be placed. One may surrender a true COPY of the permit (front and back).
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


Post Reply

Return to “General Talk”