My husband was charged with the above, but, according to him, the light was amber when he proceeded into the intersection. The police officer was following him and my husband was aware that he was behind him. This particular light is located in a small town at a busy intersection and I do not believe that my husband could go through a red light here without being involved in a collision. Also, there was a pedestrian in a wheelchair at the intersection. If the light had been red for my husband, the Walk sign would have been lit for him to cross the street. This ticket happened October 28, 2010 when they were having a "blitz" on people running red lights and stop signs. Not sure if there is some way to use this in his defense. 3 days after my husband got this ticket, I was pulled over (31st of Oct) for failing to stop for a stop sign. I told the officer that I most certainly did stop at the stop sign and, after looking at my license and registration, he returned to his cruiser and drove away. I really believe that this was done to get convictions for their "blitz". Neither my husband or myself have ever been charged with failing to stop for anything, and to both be stopped within days of each other during a "blitz" seems very suspect.

Any suggestions?

When police do a blitz it doesn't mean that they start making up charges where no offence was committed (I'm not say that you're alleging this, I'm just pointing it out), but what it does mean is that they adopt a zero tolerance policy for infractions which, in the case of stop signs, means that nearly everybody who goes through could properly be charged with an offence since most people "roll" through without coming to a complete stop. Same for red lights. I don't think that there's a way to use this in your defence, since their evidence will be that your committed the elements of the offence and, because of the zero tolerance policy at the time, you were charged. There's really nothing improper about adopting a zero tolerance policy during a blitz, so if you ask the officer about it at a trial, they'll fully acknowledge it without damaging their case.

All of the other things you mentioned, like the fact that you have good records or that a collision would have been likely if you had gone through the intersection on a red are just facts which you can call on the judge to draw an inference from in your favour, but which don't hold much actual evidentiary weight.

It seems that, from what you've described regarding the red light ticket, the real evidence you have is your version of events from your perspective. Trial is an opportunity for you to present that perspective to the JP. The crown will present the officer's perspective and the JP will weigh the 2 stories and come to a decision.