“Disobey Sign Hta 182(2) - No Straight Through Intersection”

Hello OHTA Forum,

This is my first post, before I jump right in I would like to thank the forum, members, posters and moderators for all the information posted. I feel like I have been able to learn a lot from others experiences, so thank you all.

This will be a lengthy post. But if you are dealing with a Disobey Sign HTA 182(2) - No Straight Through Intersection you may find this extremely interesting.

The Post is in 3 parts:

-Summary of Ticket

-Defense of Ticket

- 2 avenues of defense, with evidence, links and strategies

-General Comments & Attachments

Onto the ticket. I was given a ticket for Disobey Sign HTA 182(2) - in regards to a No Straight Through Intersection Sign. On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 12:20pm.

Here is a quick summary of the alleged offense. I the defendant was driving north up Everden Road south of Eglinton Ave West to park within the Green P Parking on the East side of Everden Road, south of Eglinton Ave West. There are two caution signs at the bottom of Everden Road facing northbound traffic stating, "NO EXIT 7AM to 7PM Except Sunday and Public Holidays". Further north up the street before the intersection, approximately 65m south of the intersection there is a sign "NO STRAIGHT THROUGH INTERSECTION 7AM to 7PM MON-SAT Police Vehicles Excepted". The sign does not state that, it is just a white background with a black arrow going straight up and a red circle and line crossing over the black arrow.

As I was driving north up Everden with a friend as a passenger, I seen both signs as well as a cop scout vehicle parked just 2m south of the no straight through intersection sign and another vehicle stopped on the east side of the road and thought nothing of it, living in the area and knowing these signs I had no intention to exit the street or go straight through the intersection of Everden and Eglinton Ave West. I proceeded to go north, past both signs, signaled to the right and proceeded to park in an empty spot on the east side of Everden within the signs that signal Green P paid parking, approximately 30m north of the no straight through sign and 15m north of the parking terminal to pay for the parking. As I was in the parked vehicle talking with my friends before exiting the vehicle to pay for parking the cop must have exited his vehicle and came to mine. This surprised me, he then instructed I give over my driving documents, which I did. I was completely confused, as to why I was being asked for the documents, but I complied none the less. He leaves to his vehicle for a while and then comes back with a ticket, stating a disobey of the no straight through intersection sign.

I stated to the officer, that I did not go through the intersection and my intention was to park, and that I have parked, and that my parked vehicle within the Green P parking was my destination. I asked, I understand you have given me the ticket, and I cannot change that but I am here to park and will be parking here, can I not park here? He then said I cannot park on the street and told me to start my vehicle, get out of my spot and leave the street. Meanwhile many cars are parked on the street with paided parking stamps from the terminal on their dashboard. I am in no mood to fight a copy, argue with a cop, or just deal with them in any fashion that they can perceive as a slight against them. I prefer to face them in court. So, I did as he said and started me vehicle and turned around and parked further down on another side street and just walked all the way with my friend back to Eglinton to be on our merry way.

Onto my defense for this ticket, I have requested a trial and have my friend available to come as a witness backing up what actually happened. My trail is towards the late end of February, 2017. Notice of Trail was given on July 11, 2016, after early my resolution meeting which was requested within days of receiving the ticket. I have 2 avenues of defense that I can see at the moment: First Avenue Pleading Not Guilty and fighting the Ticket with witness, evidence, and cross-examination; Second Avenue Application for Stay / Filling a 11B if I can draw out the court dates with proven delay attributed to the prosecutors office.

I have requested disclosure, on December 14, 2016 in person, I have my disclosure stamped and also have a signed and stamped affidavit stating I gave disclosure that day. I was given a typed electronic copy of the notes on the spot the day I requested disclosure. However, they stated they have DVD/audio evidence and I have been waiting for that. I will be going in this Friday January 13, 2017 to request disclosure again, and get another affidavit signed. This is to prepare for 11B if it comes down to it further down the line.

Being that I have been charged with a Disobey Sign offense, I would plead not guilty and prove that I did not disobey any sign. With witness, evidence, and cross-examination.

With my witness to testify, and myself if need be and my cross-examination prepared for the officer and also my witness if need be. I can prove that I did not disobey any sign. I plan to use cross-examination to lead and present my evidence referenced below by asking the cop about his knowledge og the documents I link below.

The Official MTO Driver's Handbook, the online version states the sign I "disobeyed" is a sign that states "Do not drive straight through the intersection".

LINK: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/ ... .1.1.shtml (I have 3 copies printed out)

R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 615 Signs, s. 22 (5) & (7) states the sign stands for "(5) Every sign that prohibits a vehicle from proceeding straight through an intersection shall,". "(7) Every sign that restricts a vehicle from proceeding straight through an intersection shall".

LINK: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900615#BK5 (I have 3 copies printed out)

Only, Book 5 of the Ontario Traffic Manual on Regulatory Signs; Sign Types states the signs as the following:

"The NO STRAIGHT THROUGH sign (Rb-10) - prohibits straight-through movements, and requires that the vehicle turn to either the left or right.

The NO STRAIGHT THROUGH sign with specified times (Rb-10A) restricts the Rb-10 prohibition to the specified times of day and days of week."

LINK: http://www.directtraffic.ca/wp-content/ ... ook-51.pdf (I have 3 copies printed out)

However, the guidelines for use in Book 5 of the Ontario Traffic Manual on Regulatory Signs state:

"Turn control signs are typically used at intersections. In the case of U-turns, however, the sign indicates that drivers are prohibited from making U-turns at or near the location of the sign.

Additional turn control signs may be used as advance signs upstream of the intersection to which they apply. There should be no other intersections, driveways or entrances between the advance sign and the intersection to which the turn control sign applies."

LINK: http://www.directtraffic.ca/wp-content/ ... ook-51.pdf (I have 3 copies printed out)

Even then the guidelines state that the no straight through signs are used at intersections and can be used upstream of the intersection they apply too. Also, Im not sure it matters but there is a driveway/entrance between the advance sign and the intersection to which the turn control sign applies.

My big pull from these documents, regulations, laws, are that I parked, I stated I wanted to park and in no way, did I go through the intersection. I did not turn left, or right, or go straight through the intersection. I just parked on the street. In a permitted Green P Parking Area. Therefore based on how these documents interpret the sign, I did not go against the documents and therefore did not disobey the sign.

I have done this all my life, used Everden Road, I have lived in the area for my whole life, and use that road often to park, pickup friends and family from the TTC station and even park there to visit the local Division 13 Police Station! Unfortunately for family circumstances I have been a frequent visitor over the last couple months. Its easy to access from my home and I can make a safe three point turn and go back down the street and to my home easier than using main streets.

I realize that the time between the ticket and notice of trail is considered neutral and cannot be used to argue for a charter violation as the crown sees any time between the filling for early resolution and the actual resolution date as neutral time, neither against me or the prosecutors office. However, I am prepared seek the charter defense as an avenue of defense if the prosecutors office(PO) does not provide me with appropriate disclosure in a timely fashion, or I just dont receive proper disclosure at all from the PO.

With respect to my case, the total period of delay from the time of being charged until his trial date is 10months and 20 days. Of this period, I (just little olcivilian me) apportion the delay as follows:

* Inherent time requirements of case: 1 month day / the PO can argue 2 months

* Accused delay: 10 days

* Institutional Delay: 9 months 10 days

* Neutral Timing/Early Resolution: 4 months *7 days* (Leaving Institutional Delay at 6 months 13 days)

As far as my disclosure requests go, they have not given (I have requested the following):

o explanation and clarification of the charge;

o certified copy of the by-laws on Everden Road;

o certified copy of the regulations and laws pertaining to the charge and signage on Everden Rd;

o dashboard camera footage from the Officer # 8743 police vehicle during the time of charge;

o any photographic, audio or video evidence if it exists that the Crown intends to use it at trial

o any statements made by the defendant;

o copies of the original notes of such statements; and

o the names and address, occupation and criminal record of the persons providing such information.

I realize if they do not give any of the above I must argue in court to the crown as to why I should be given these things. I have arguments for each, others being stronger then some, but I am prepared to fight for each one.

They have only provided (I requested the following):

o a full copy of the police officers notes;

o a typed version of any hand-written notes;

o If short-form writing is used in the officer's notes, please have the officer provide an explanation for the short forms;

o a copy of both sides of the officers copy of the ticket (Notice of Offence);

I realize filling for an 11B at this time is a long shot, but Im preparing myself as it may become relevant. Also, this is just all good to learn as far as I am concerned so I do not mind.

Attached to this post you shall see the sign in question, the street and a diagram noting how this panned out and where all the vehicles were at the time of the ticket. As well as the officer notes.

Im posting this to see if perhaps I am missing something, or if I am fundamentally getting something wrong. Are there other avenues for defense Im missing? Are the avenues for defense Ive chosen flawed?

I am all ears and open to learn. Everything I have posted, all my current knowledge comes from these forums and reading some case law in regards to 11Bs.

Seems like you have a pretty solid case there. The parking thing is irrelevant, the key thing is that the sign is "no proceeding straight through an intersection" and you never entered an intersection. The signs should be "do not enter" if they don't want you to enter. Period, end of statement.

Maybe brighter minds than I can find a flaw in our thinking. Please keep us informed either way!

It seems confusing to me... why would this sign be in the middle of the street. You would think that it should be just before or at the intersection. The other thing that is confusing is that there does not appear to be an intersection at the end of the street to go thru anyways.

More confusing is if you use google maps and go to the end of Everden you will see there is a no right turn and a no left turn sign.

So appartently when you get to the end of this street you are supposed to turn around?

If they do not want people to use that road then I think there should a DO NOT ENTER sign instead.

And of course there appears to be a parking lot on the left as well as the parking along the right.

Perhaps the "intersection" they are talking about is the trail to the right into the park? Or the driveway into the parking lot on the left? But to me, neither of those would qualify as an intersection.

Anyways definitely worth fighting and lots of strange discrepencies to bring up on this street that do make sense.

And for further reading, look at section 22(5) to 22(7.1) of the sign regulation here:

I get the same impression. It seems the intent is to keep people from entering that little area. A Do Not Enter sign and a No Proceeding Straight Through an Intersection are NOT the same thing. This should be a slam dunk.

This is very bizarre. I think it would be worth noting when you bring this to court that you cannot go straight through Eglinton Ave, and once you approach that intersection, you cannot turn right or left, as jsherk noted above.

In terms of your defence, I would only refer to Regulation 615: Signs, since that's the law. I don't think it particularly helps your case for the Ontario Traffic Manual or the MTO Driver's Handbook. The law, specifically section 22(5) and section 22(7) of Regulation 615, already clearly states it is a sign that prohibits going straight through an intersection.

For a section 11(b) Charter argument, however, a recent Supreme Court case R. v. Jordan from this past July has pushed up the delay to 18 months, in order to be considered "unreasonable". So, I wouldn't use a section 11(b) Charter argument if the delay in your case is only 10 months.

Also, if you plan on raising a Charter argument for improper or incomplete disclosure, in most cases for the first instance, you would get an adjournment to another date so that the prosecution can provide you with what you are requesting. If your trial has been adjourned multiple times, then it becomes a valid argument to stay the proceedings using section 7 of the Charter and R. v. Stinchcombe.

However, I don't think it's necessary to resort to a Charter argument, I think you have a strong enough defence using Regulation 615: Signs.

Hi Everyone,

Thank you for your replies, I gained more perspective and am even more encouraged to fight this ticket. This forum has given me a lot of hope and all of your responses add to that. Whatever the outcome, I am truly grateful. Also, I appreciate learning about the recent Supreme Court case R. v. Jordan from this past July in regards to the 11B. I continue to learn a lot, and hope my post can help others as well.

-How exactly would I present them in court to the crown? The evidence and the witness.

-Do I cross examine the officer and then bring up my documents/law and witness as evidence as he answers each of my questions?

-Do I let them know before court proceeds and then when given the chance to speak I let the crown know and proceed to reference my evidence and then ask my witness up to the stand to cross-examine them, or have them testify?

-I assume multiple photocopies of these laws and documents will be enough to use as evidence in court and pass around?

-Am I overthinking this? Do I just state Reg 615 when given the chance to speak, show proof of 615, testify and have my witness testify to me parking and being parked, then state the notes say I did nothing against the definition as stated in Reg 615 s22 5&7?

I appreciate any answers, advice or help. I have done a lot of work on this case and am new to all of this, I believe what the cop did is wrong but I understand I must fight for that, and it is tiring and stressful having this hang over my head. Without this forum however, it would all be much harder. A big thank you to everyone who replied and all those active on the forum.

-DGnarr

Here is a previous discussion on the R v Jordan case:

My opinion is that the 18 months does NOT apply to POA offences and that it still remains at the 8 to 10 month limit.

As far as cross-examination goes, here is a thread to give you some tips on that:

What I would do, is while the officer is on the stand and you are cross-examining, you ask questions and then you produce the picture or regulation and you ask permission to show it to the officer and then ask specific questions about the item or get them to read it. Print three copies of whatever caselaw or regulations you will use and you will need three copies of each picture. You should probably go to Everden and take pictures yourself as they JP may not accept Google images. You can then ask for the item to be put into evidence. It does not matter if the JP accepts it as evidence or not, as you should still be allowed to show it to officer and ask them questions about it.

Trial looks like this:

- They read charge and ask you how you plead.

- Prosecution calls their first witness (officer) and asks a bunch of questions.

- You then cross-examine officer (use/enter as much of your information as you can at this point).

- Prosecutor gets to ask officer any clarifying questions about what you asked, and you can then cross-examine one more time with resepct to anything new the prosecutor brought out.

- You can then call your first witness (probably you). In this case, since there is nobody to ask you questions, you just say everything you want to say and bring up every law/regulation/picture again even if you showed it to officer and make all your points that you want to make.

- Prosecutor will then get to cross-examine you.

- You then call your second witness (your friend). You then proceed to ask them about the situation and ask them about every law/regulation/picture again and get their story in as well.

- Prosecutor will then get to cross-examine them.

- Prosecutor will make closing arguments about why they think you should be convicted.

- You make your closing arguments about why you should not be convicted and summarize all the important points you talked about.

- JP will make decision.

As I mentioned in another post, I was in court recently and overheard that prosecutors in provincial courts (municipal or otherwise) have received notice of the R. v. Jordan case and are currently applying it to cases before the courts relating to provincial offences as well, and I have seen that first hand for parking infractions when I've been in court.

18 months is the presumptive ceiling for unreasonable delay in all provincial courts.

Here are recent cases of Justices applying R. v. Jordan in provincial offences trials:

municipal by-law infraction - http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... cj746.html

Highway Traffic Act offences - http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... cj569.html

Those two decision are both Ontario Court of Justice level and are both by Justice of the Peace which means they are NOT binding on any court or any other Justice of the Peace.

I would still make the 11b arguments at 10 months, even though a JP may agree with prosecutor that it should be 18 months it will make a good appeal argument for a Judge to decide.

While it is true that these decisions are not necessarily binding, it will take awhile for a provincial offences trial (with R. v. Jordan applied) to reach a higher court (i.e. Court of Appeal of Ontario) because R. v. Jordan is a relatively new decision.

And typically, prosecutors and defendants would rather not use their time and resources on an appeal for relatively minor provincial offences, so it will take awhile to get up to the next level to see what the appellate court has to say.

However, I expect the City of Mississauga to appeal the municipal by-law case that was decided in favour of Uber (http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... cj746.html) - so it may be a short while before we hear from the Court of Appeal.

The OP can try to use a section 11(b) Charter argument, but it may not be successful. I'm all in favour of trying and seeing what happens, and winning cases! But it all comes down to what arguments will work and how likely those arguments will be successful. Having said that, I don't anticipate that the OP will need to resort to a Charter argument because I think they have a strong enough argument using Regulation 615: Signs.

Whenaxis wrote:However, I expect the City of Mississauga to appeal the municipal by-law case that was decided in favour of Uber (http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... cj746.html) - so it may be a short while before we hear from the Court of Appeal.

Zatota wrote:I can't see Mississauga winning. If the Court rules that Jordan only applies to criminal matters, the City would still lose on the Askov/Morin test. If the Court rules Jordan does apply, the City loses on the Jordan test. The risk the City takes is that the Court of Appeal could rule that Provincial Offences are less complicated than criminal matters and, so, should have a shorter threshold time of, say, 12 months.

I would have to agree with you. The justice did a very careful analysis under Askov, Morin and Jordan. But it seems municipalities are poised to take down Uber and do whatever it takes to accomplish that. I believe the City of Mississauga have since amended their by-laws regarding the wording of "taxicab" and "limousine service" - although that may have been the City of Toronto...

Now that I think about it though, if any Provincial Offences case gets appealed, I don't think the Court of Appeal would want to rule on whether Jordan applies to regulatory Provincial Offences (if it's included as "criminal law") and the Court would likely not want to set an arbitrary threshold for unreasonable delay for regulatory Provincial Offences if it finds that Jordan does not apply - they're careful not to misinterpret higher court decisions and possibly run the risk of inadvertently overturning or overruling the Supreme Court. The appellate court would probably refer back to the Supreme Court for further clarification - so it may actually take a long while to know for certain.

But for now, it seems 18 months will hold as the presumptive ceiling for provincial trial courts.

Hello Everyone!

I wanted to share the good news, this February I won the case! The charges were withdrawn by the prosecutor.

I took some time before trail to speak to the cop about the ticket, without giving away my whole defence I made him aware that I know of Regulation 615, s 22 ss 5 & 7. That I had a witness ready, my laptop with the dvd dashcam footage to watch and 3 copies of all related information and cross-examination prepared for him, and my witness.

He kept, trying to push me towards a ticket with no demerit points and only a $60 charge. Explaining how the city makes the signs and his job is just to enforce them, explaining the justice system to me and the definition of a resolution in the justice system. He kept saying that he could speak to the prosecutor and work something out but that the prosecutor would not withdraw the charge. He alluded that he doubted the case would get withdrawn and that the justice could give me a heavier punishment as the justice cannot withdraw charges. He also alluded that if I go to trial there is a possibility I would not get the chance to fight the ticket that day. I told him I appreciate everything on offer but if I am not seen today I fill file a stay of application in regards to an 11B, and that in trial I will accept whatever the justice decides as I would like him/her to see the case. He even tried his best to stall me outside talking up a storm about the justice system as if that would stop me from going back inside the courtroom.

He never fully admitted to being in the wrong when talking with me. (Why would he, he must "believe" I went against the law to give a ticket). Although after my stance that unless charge is completely withdrawn this ticket will go to trial, he gave in. With every slight offer he gave me I "politely declined" them as I was only looking to have the charges completely withdrawn, and if the offer wasn't that then we would both have to hear what the justice has to say. As I was in the courtroom awaiting my trail, after we spoke, he went inside the courtroom, whispered to the prosecutor a couple times and I was immediately called up for my charge to be withdrawn.

There happened to be another person behind me in the courtroom to fight the same ticket with the same officer given just 2 months after my ticket to the exact day. Not to mention in the dashcam footage I have he is giving out the same ticket to multiple people for 30 minutes!! And as you can guess!!! Each person in the video that got a ticket.. did nothing wrong.

Something strange happening here? Possibly. This whole thing just "felt" wrong. I am glad its over. Thanks to everyone for their ideas, and for looking over my post and giving your thoughts on the facts posted.

Thanks everyone! This is a shared victory for the forum and everyone who posted on this thread! Thank you all!

**This post is not legal advice, this is my opinion and my own understanding of the law. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. **

Congratulations! Thank you for coming back to share with us!

Congratulations on the win, and for sticking it out to the end!