I was turning left from southbound Black Creek to eastbound Lawrence Ave. during the morning rush hour a week ago. As I made the left turn from an advance arrow I had to quickly get into the right lane to enter the plaza for a doctor's visit. The entrance to the plaza is no more than 25-30 metres from the intersection. I signalled my right turn after making the left. The officer pulled over 6 vehicles in a row all for the same infraction. The last vehicle was actually blocking the cross walk section of the intersection while the first vehicle stopped was in front of the entrance to the plaza (so no more than six car lengths to enter the driveway). How could he have seen all six of us without taking his eyes off the first vehicle he was directing to pull to the curb lane and stop and avoid being hit by any ather driver?? The officer was was also directing other vehicles travelling in the right lane to merge over the the left letting them by. I was the third vehicle in the lrow of vehicles he pulled over. I have proof that I visited my doctor and had blood work done that very morning after my visit to prove where I was going.

Furthermore, it had snowed heavily the night before and while the streets were slushy there was a build up of snow in front of the median for those making a left from west bound Lawrence to southbound Black Creek forcing drivers like me to make a wider than usual left turn. This is a cash grab. I saw how he pulled over the 2 vehicles in front of me and he was making eye contact with each of them and directing them where to move to and when to stop their cars. Have heard of multi-tasking before but there is no way he could have seen us all without making making a mistake.

Anyone have any defence for this. I have not received a court date yet but will request disclosure once I get it. I was so upset that morning that I went straight to the former Etobicoke City Hall after my blood work and immediately requested trial.

I read in another post that the only way to argue such a charge would be a statement that you had to make a right turn immediately after the left turn, in which case you do not have to make a left turn to a left lane. The entrance on which one has to make a right turn has to be very close to the intersection.

Is this a viable defence??? Is there anything in the HTA which states this???

Please help and thank you.

141(3) is the section for improper RIGHT turn

Sorry it should read 141(6). Thanks

jlo wrote: statement that you had to make a right turn immediately after the left turn, in which case you do not have to make a left turn to a left lane. .

that is incorrect, still must enter the correct lane, once in that lane, signal to the right lane, then change lanes if safe to do so.

From google maps (satellite view) comes with a scale the entrance is approx 100m from the intersection (using paper onto the computer screen to measure). Then I used "directions" thru google and stated "take 1st left onto Lawrence Avenue W" for 120m.

So did you turn into the left lane of Lawrence and then move over immediately, or did you turn directly in to the right lane of Lawrence? Just want to be clear.

Like you mentioned Google maps is an approx. measurement. I actually went and measured yesterday. It is 65 m. from the cross walk to the plaza entrance. I did make a legal left turn and then quickly entered the right lane because I had to get into the plaza for blood work and a doctor's visit. I know this officer is there during morning rush hour and have seen him numerous times before. I've been going to this doctor for 25 years on a bi monthly basis. I know better than to make an improper turn especially when you can see him from the advance left turn lane from Black Creek southbound.

The officer was directing traffic in front of me. Remember he pulled over two vehicles before me. My right indicator was on. He initially directed me to go around the 2 vehicles he pulled over before me but then when he saw my right indicator light on he stopped me too. There was no way he saw me making an improper left turn when firstly I made a proper left turn and secondly he was looking at the other two drivers directing then to pull over. I know this because when he pulled me over to the side he made eye contact with me and actually directed me to the curb lane using head and hand motions taking his eyes of what was happening behind me.

There is no way he could pull over 6 vehicles, direct them to pull over, stop them one at a time and still see what was occuring.

Any advice would be helpfull. Thanks folks.

jlo wrote:I did make a legal left turn and then quickly entered the right lane because I had to get into the plaza for blood work and a doctor's visit.

If that's what happened then that's your defence. If you refuse to take a deal because you believe you are not guilty of an offence, then you go to trial and you say just that. As with every case, the JP weighs your evidence and the officer's evidence and comes to an assessment, given the totality of the evidence, whether there's reasonable doubt or not. It's pretty simple.

Well if you turned in to the left most lane, and you were then indicating you wanted to get over to the right, there is no case. Your testimony is going to have to be solid, however. Don't worry about what you think he may or may not have seen with respect to other vehicles. The JP is not going to buy into that. Focus on what you did. Also remember, the Highway Traffic Act makes no requirement about how far you must drive in the lane you turned in to before you can change out of that lane. In other words, as soon as you've entered the lane, you may depart it. You just can't depart the intersection in the "wrong" lane. (Make sure you print off all of the applicable HTA sections.) Get the officer's notes via disclosure. If at any point, he says that you did, indeed, turn into the left lane coming off Black Creek Drive, stand up and say "I'd like to make a motion of non-suit."

As far as officer vs. defendant testimony, read this case on CanLII:

R. v. Sandhu

The Supreme Court of Canada says that testimony is not a credibility contest. So, if your testimony is solid, you should be able to win.

R. v. W.(D.)