“Charged With Wrong Offence: Hta 62(11) Instead Of Hta 62(19)”

Hello,

I was pulled over because both my rear license plate lights had burned out and it was dark out. The officer charged me with "Fail to have proper identification lamps," ($110) but under HTA 62(11), which reads:

Identification lamps

(11) When on a highway at any time from one-half hour before sunset to one-half hour after sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less, every commercial motor vehicle or combination of a commercial motor vehicle and a trailer having a length in excess of 9.2 metres or a width in excess of 2.05 metres shall carry three lighted lamps displaying green or amber lights at the front, except in the case of a public vehicle which shall display amber lights at the front, and three lighted lamps displaying red lights at the rear, and the lights of each colour shall be evenly placed not less than 150 millimetres nor more than 310 millimetres apart along a horizontal line as near the top of the commercial motor vehicle or combination of a commercial motor vehicle and a trailer as the permanent structure permits, and shall be visible for distances of 150 metres from the front and rear respectively of the commercial motor vehicle or combination of a commercial motor vehicle and a trailer. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 62 (11).

I'm almost certain the correct charge is HTA 62(19), which reads:

Rear lamps to illuminate number plate

(19) The lamp on the rear of a motor vehicle or trailer shall be of at least three candela and shall be so placed that it will, at any time from one-half hour before sunset to one-half hour after sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less, illuminate the numbers on the number plate, or, if provision is made on the number plate or on any attachment furnished or required by the Ministry for affixing the lamp, it shall be affixed in the position or space provided, and the lamp shall face to the rear and reflect on the number plate a white light only. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 62 (19).

I have a couple questions.

1. What are the chances of getting this dropped by a JoP based on the incorrect offense?

2. Is HTA 62(19) a significantly higher fine and the cop was "helping me out"?

3. I also blew a .50: a 3-day suspension. I know it's stupid and I'm not here to debate or defend that I was in the wrong, because I know I was. Does this have any bearing on the actual charge regarding the license plate lights?

I plan on requesting disclosure and fighting the ticket with the defense that the charge itself is incorrect.

shnuffy wrote:

1. What are the chances of getting this dropped by a JoP based on the incorrect offense?

2. Is HTA 62(19) a significantly higher fine and the cop was "helping me out"?

3. I also blew a .50: a 3-day suspension. I know it's stupid and I'm not here to debate or defend that I was in the wrong, because I know I was. Does this have any bearing on the actual charge regarding the license plate lights?

1) When you bring this to their attention, the prosecutor may ask that it be amended to the correct section. JP may grant this.

2) Same fine, both no points.

3) Irrelevant.

Thanks for the reply Simon. Great website, btw.

I'm going to try my luck at trial and I'll update this thread when I'm done.

Bring a receipt from a shop to show that you had the lights fixed. The prosecutor most likely will ask you to plead guilty to the driving under the influence and withdraw the lights ticket stating that you have repaired the problem.

He wasn't charged with impaired driving or driving over .08 (so to speak), though. He blew .05, which is only enough to get a roadside licence suspension (HTA).

I'd still bring the receipt (as you said) and see how it goes, though.

62(11) is for the cluster of 3 lights (front and rear) on a CMV

62(19) is for the licence plate light

Simon Borys wrote:

shnuffy wrote:

1. What are the chances of getting this dropped by a JoP based on the incorrect offense?

2. Is HTA 62(19) a significantly higher fine and the cop was "helping me out"?

3. I also blew a .50: a 3-day suspension. I know it's stupid and I'm not here to debate or defend that I was in the wrong, because I know I was. Does this have any bearing on the actual charge regarding the license plate lights?

1) When you bring this to their attention, the prosecutor may ask that it be amended to the correct section. JP may grant this.

2) Same fine, both no points.

3) Irrelevant.

Simon, can you not object before the charge is read?

Ie: They call the person up and the person objects.(wrong charge,city,date,#'s etc)

I have done this at least 3 times but they were 10 or more years ago.

Each time the charge was dropped.

If you wait too long in the reading (of the charge) the crown can amend it.

Has this right passed us by?

Just curious.

Cheers

Viper1

viper1 wrote:

Simon, can you not object before the charge is read?

Ie: They call the person up and the person objects.(wrong charge,city,date,#'s etc)

I have done this at least 3 times but they were 10 or more years ago.

Each time the charge was dropped.

If you wait too long in the reading (of the charge) the crown can amend it.

I can't say how things worked 10 years ago, that was before my time, but what I do know is that now it's not an issue of timing. It doesn't matter when you object or when they try to amend it, the JP will (or will not) allow it on its merits.