Hey all,

Quick question on reviewing my offence notice. What does the box "Motor vehicle involved" mean? Specifically, the box has been checked.

Probably not a fatal error, right?

Thanks

Motor vehicle involved means whether the defendant was using a motor vehicle to commit the offence. It doesn't refer to other vehicles. So if you got an HTA ticket for speeding or valtag, etc, it would be checked. If you got a trespassing or public intox ticket, it wouldn't be. If it's wrong in either case, it's not a fatal error.

Some of the newer Provincial Offences Notices have a "NO" check box beside the "motor vehicle involved" part. On these tickets, the box only gets checked if there was no motor vehicle... for things like what Simon described, like liquor tickets, etc.

In the last amendment to the ticket books they changed the Motor Vehicle Involved section. It used to be that you had to choose Y or N, as the case was. Now it's just assumed that a motor vehicle was involved, because that's usually the case, and the box is a "N" for no motor vehicle involved, and you check that off only if no motor vehicle was involved.

That change occurred about 1 year or 2 ago now and none of the old PONs should still be in circulation.

My trial was like a train-wreck.. It got out of my control very quickly. At one point the prosecutor and officer were able to convince the justice that this box "likely" meant that there was no other vehicle involved in the incident.

I was way out of my league, and even though I proved that there was no offence committed, and I requested a motion of non-suit, the justice disagreed (his interpretation he said was not the same as mine), and actually held it against me in his decision that I had requested a motion of non-suit...he actually almost yelled at me when I made the request.

ignite wrote:

My trial was like a train-wreck.. It got out of my control very quickly. At one point the prosecutor and officer were able to convince the justice that this box "likely" meant that there was no other vehicle involved in the incident.

I was way out of my league, and even though I proved that there was no offence committed, and I requested a motion of non-suit, the justice disagreed (his interpretation he said was not the same as mine), and actually held it against me in his decision that I had requested a motion of non-suit...he actually almost yelled at me when I made the request.

Appeal. Some cases the JP doesn't really understand what's happening, this being one of them it seems. Put it before a real Judge. I had a JP yell at me once, but to my defense, the Crown actually piped up and admitted that there was no concrete evidence, only circumstantial evidence of the allegations against me and arguably not prima facie.