Here's the situation: There's a set of traffic lights just before the bridge and I was in the left-most lane just before getting onto the bridge. At that point, the lane is open to all traffic but once on the bridge it becomes a reserved lane. The traffic was backed up in the middle lane the entire length of the bridge. At the lights the cars in the middle lane could not even get onto the bridge on a green light. So I got onto the bridge put my turn signal on and started looking for an opening but the cars were not even moving and I kept on going. I also had a bus behind me. The only option was to stop in the left-most lane and wait, blocking the entire lane. I kept on going and went all the way to the end of the bridge and stopped at the red light just before getting off the bridge. My turn signal was on the entire time. The police car was parked on the median, facing the oncoming traffic, just before the end of the bridge. The cop got out and asked for my licence. He said I was in a reserved lane. I said I was aware and that I had tried to merge unsuccessfully. He went back into his car and came back 2 minutes later with the ticket. Ticket says: Improper use of high occupancy lane, Highway Traffic Act 154.1(3), $110 all the other information seems to be correct except my apartment number in the address is missing. Do I have any chance of fighting this?
Here's the situation:
There's a set of traffic lights just before the bridge and I was in the left-most lane just before getting onto the bridge. At that point, the lane is open to all traffic but once on the bridge it becomes a reserved lane. The traffic was backed up in the middle lane the entire length of the bridge. At the lights the cars in the middle lane could not even get onto the bridge on a green light. So I got onto the bridge put my turn signal on and started looking for an opening but the cars were not even moving and I kept on going. I also had a bus behind me. The only option was to stop in the left-most lane and wait, blocking the entire lane. I kept on going and went all the way to the end of the bridge and stopped at the red light just before getting off the bridge. My turn signal was on the entire time. The police car was parked on the median, facing the oncoming traffic, just before the end of the bridge. The cop got out and asked for my licence. He said I was in a reserved lane. I said I was aware and that I had tried to merge unsuccessfully. He went back into his car and came back 2 minutes later with the ticket.
Ticket says: Improper use of high occupancy lane, Highway Traffic Act 154.1(3), $110
all the other information seems to be correct except my apartment number in the address is missing.
Just to add to this, I live in Quebec but got the ticket in Ontario. This offence carries 3 demerit points in Ontario. How does that translate onto my Quebec driver's license?
Just to add to this, I live in Quebec but got the ticket in Ontario. This offence carries 3 demerit points in Ontario. How does that translate onto my Quebec driver's license?
Was it a BUS lane or was it a HOV lane? You will have to check how a conviction from Ontario will affect you in Quebec: http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/ShowDo ... 20r.%2022/
Was it a BUS lane or was it a HOV lane?
You will have to check how a conviction from Ontario will affect you in Quebec:
It was a HOV lane. The sign says bus, taxi or vehicles with 3 or more occupants. I read that document but there is no mention of Highway Traffic Act 154.1 in the agreement. This is a list of traffic offences carrying demerit points in Quebec and there's nothing on HOV. https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/drivers-lice ... it-points/
It was a HOV lane. The sign says bus, taxi or vehicles with 3 or more occupants.
I read that document but there is no mention of Highway Traffic Act 154.1 in the agreement.
This is a list of traffic offences carrying demerit points in Quebec and there's nothing on HOV.
First, I would like to ask where exactly this took place (i.e. name of the road/highway). In order for the charge to be valid, you need to have been on a King's Highway designated for HOV lanes. Check this: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/050620#BK10 and see if the road you were traveling on is listed there. (HOV lanes are only designated on certain sections of Highway 404, Highway 403, Queen Elizabeth Way, Highway 417) If you weren't traveling on one of those roads, you weren't traveling in an HOV lane as per section 154.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, and you were not charged with the proper offence.
First, I would like to ask where exactly this took place (i.e. name of the road/highway).
In order for the charge to be valid, you need to have been on a King's Highway designated for HOV lanes.
(HOV lanes are only designated on certain sections of Highway 404, Highway 403, Queen Elizabeth Way, Highway 417)
If you weren't traveling on one of those roads, you weren't traveling in an HOV lane as per section 154.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, and you were not charged with the proper offence.
It took place on the Portage bridge in Ottawa. It's an inter-provincial bridge between Quebec and Ontario and I got pulled over in the southbound lane where the bridge ends and intersects with Wellington Street. Looking at the google map I just noticed that the address on the ticket is incorrect as well. It says "intersection of Wellington St. and Sir John A. MacDonald Parkway". Wellington does not intersect Sir John A. MacDonald Parkway, it becomes it and not even at the point where it intersects the bridge but one block further west of the bridge. Here's a google map link o the exact location: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4202011,-75.7106253,16z I checked that link and this bridge is not mentioned in it. Also, the HOV sign on the page does not look exactly like the one on this bridge. Below is a google street view of the sign. https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4208427 ... 56!6m1!1e1
Whenaxis wrote:
First, I would like to ask where exactly this took place (i.e. name of the road/highway).
In order for the charge to be valid, you need to have been on a King's Highway designated for HOV lanes.
(HOV lanes are only designated on certain sections of Highway 404, Highway 403, Queen Elizabeth Way, Highway 417)
If you weren't traveling on one of those roads, you weren't traveling in an HOV lane as per section 154.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, and you were not charged with the proper offence.
It took place on the Portage bridge in Ottawa. It's an inter-provincial bridge between Quebec and Ontario and I got pulled over in the southbound lane where the bridge ends and intersects with Wellington Street. Looking at the google map I just noticed that the address on the ticket is incorrect as well. It says "intersection of Wellington St. and Sir John A. MacDonald Parkway". Wellington does not intersect Sir John A. MacDonald Parkway, it becomes it and not even at the point where it intersects the bridge but one block further west of the bridge.
I checked that link and this bridge is not mentioned in it. Also, the HOV sign on the page does not look exactly like the one on this bridge. Below is a google street view of the sign.
You need to read REG 620/05 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/050620 HTA S154.1 ONLY applies to small sections of Hwy 403, 404, 417 and QEW with regulatory HOV-lanes. During the Pan-Am Games they made temporary amendments to the law in order to enforce HOV-lanes. I do not understand why LEOs in ON write HTA tickets for HOV lane offences in inner-city roads; they have to write by-law tickets, in the Greater Toronto Area it's $65 set fine + $15 victim surcharge + $5 court fee = $85 total fine This by-law ticket does not affect your insurance or demerit points; it's basically a parking ticket. You should be able to get this ticket dropped with very little explanation at your early-resolution meeting; there is "no reasonable prospect for a conviction" if it goes to trial.
HTA S154.1 ONLY applies to small sections of Hwy 403, 404, 417 and QEW with regulatory HOV-lanes. During the Pan-Am Games they made temporary amendments to the law in order to enforce HOV-lanes.
I do not understand why LEOs in ON write HTA tickets for HOV lane offences in inner-city roads; they have to write by-law tickets, in the Greater Toronto Area it's $65 set fine + $15 victim surcharge + $5 court fee = $85 total fine
This by-law ticket does not affect your insurance or demerit points; it's basically a parking ticket.
You should be able to get this ticket dropped with very little explanation at your early-resolution meeting; there is "no reasonable prospect for a conviction" if it goes to trial.
(HOV lanes are only designated on certain sections of Highway 404, Highway 403, Queen Elizabeth Way, Highway 417)
If you weren't traveling on one of those roads, you weren't traveling in an HOV lane as per section 154.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, and you were not charged with the proper offence.
I have read in another thread that I should request a trial with the officer present, wait 6 months and then call the prosecutor and ask them to drop the case because of the incorrect charge. if I go to early resolution, can they just re-issue the ticket citing a by-law instead of HOV violation?
HTA S154.1 ONLY applies to small sections of Hwy 403, 404, 417 and QEW with regulatory HOV-lanes. During the Pan-Am Games they made temporary amendments to the law in order to enforce HOV-lanes.
I do not understand why LEOs in ON write HTA tickets for HOV lane offences in inner-city roads; they have to write by-law tickets, in the Greater Toronto Area it's $65 set fine + $15 victim surcharge + $5 court fee = $85 total fine
This by-law ticket does not affect your insurance or demerit points; it's basically a parking ticket.
You should be able to get this ticket dropped with very little explanation at your early-resolution meeting; there is "no reasonable prospect for a conviction" if it goes to trial.
I have read in another thread that I should request a trial with the officer present, wait 6 months and then call the prosecutor and ask them to drop the case because of the incorrect charge. if I go to early resolution, can they just re-issue the ticket citing a by-law instead of HOV violation?
Yes they could withdraw and re-issue. Would they bother? Most likely not, but still a chance. Personally I would do what you said and wait until trial date to show up and discuss with prosecutor. Bring a copy of the regulation and a copy of section 154
Yes they could withdraw and re-issue. Would they bother? Most likely not, but still a chance.
Personally I would do what you said and wait until trial date to show up and discuss with prosecutor. Bring a copy of the regulation and a copy of section 154
I agree. You've been charged with the wrong offence; you should have been charged under an Ottawa by-law. 3+ HOV lanes are municipal, not provincial, and carry different restrictions and fines.
I agree. You've been charged with the wrong offence; you should have been charged under an Ottawa by-law. 3+ HOV lanes are municipal, not provincial, and carry different restrictions and fines.
I just want to clarify something: you were charged by Ottawa Police or RCMP? Thing is Portage Bridge is an NCC bridge that falls under the NCCTPR, not the HTA. OPS usually don't bother but RCMP will charge under the NCCTPR. As such you should have been charged under S.4(1) pursuant to the HTA S.154.1. Although all the other posts are correct in that this is not the appropriate section, it can be amended to reflect the proper section because S.4(1) allows a charge under any section of the HTA. It's kind of complicated but to keep it simple, chances are it will be amended before the JP, and they usually agree to that as it is non-prejudicial (I'm from Ottawa so I've seen it before). I know different jurisdictions have different trends, but in Ottawa this is a common thing. More likely it would be amended to S. 182(2) or NCCTPR S.6. Besides, I have heard the argument before that because the Portage bridge is a Federal bridge, it is also considered King's Highway, but I'm not sure that holds much water... Finally, there are no points associated to this offence in Quebec.
I just want to clarify something: you were charged by Ottawa Police or RCMP?
Thing is Portage Bridge is an NCC bridge that falls under the NCCTPR, not the HTA. OPS usually don't bother but RCMP will charge under the NCCTPR.
As such you should have been charged under S.4(1) pursuant to the HTA S.154.1. Although all the other posts are correct in that this is not the appropriate section, it can be amended to reflect the proper section because S.4(1) allows a charge under any section of the HTA.
It's kind of complicated but to keep it simple, chances are it will be amended before the JP, and they usually agree to that as it is non-prejudicial (I'm from Ottawa so I've seen it before). I know different jurisdictions have different trends, but in Ottawa this is a common thing. More likely it would be amended to S. 182(2) or NCCTPR S.6.
Besides, I have heard the argument before that because the Portage bridge is a Federal bridge, it is also considered King's Highway, but I'm not sure that holds much water...
Finally, there are no points associated to this offence in Quebec.
I am not a lawyer or para-legal: I do not offer legal advice nor should my comments be interpreted as such. I believe in respecting the law; don't be offended if I don't agree with you.
Can you provide a linkt to S.4(1) and S. 182(2) I'm looking here but I can't find much in this document: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/ ... -1044.html I'm pretty sure it was indeed an RCMP officer as I've seen them on that bridge before. Are you saying that the chances of getting it quashed over the incorrect charge are slim? Can they still amend it even after 6 months? I've already mailed the ticket requesting a court date and the officer to be present.
devilsadvocate wrote:
I just want to clarify something: you were charged by Ottawa Police or RCMP?
Thing is Portage Bridge is an NCC bridge that falls under the NCCTPR, not the HTA. OPS usually don't bother but RCMP will charge under the NCCTPR.
As such you should have been charged under S.4(1) pursuant to the HTA S.154.1. Although all the other posts are correct in that this is not the appropriate section, it can be amended to reflect the proper section because S.4(1) allows a charge under any section of the HTA.
It's kind of complicated but to keep it simple, chances are it will be amended before the JP, and they usually agree to that as it is non-prejudicial (I'm from Ottawa so I've seen it before). I know different jurisdictions have different trends, but in Ottawa this is a common thing. More likely it would be amended to S. 182(2) or NCCTPR S.6.
Besides, I have heard the argument before that because the Portage bridge is a Federal bridge, it is also considered King's Highway, but I'm not sure that holds much water...
Finally, there are no points associated to this offence in Quebec.
Can you provide a linkt to S.4(1) and S. 182(2)
I'm looking here but I can't find much in this document:
I'm pretty sure it was indeed an RCMP officer as I've seen them on that bridge before. Are you saying that the chances of getting it quashed over the incorrect charge are slim? Can they still amend it even after 6 months? I've already mailed the ticket requesting a court date and the officer to be present.
The charge probably should have been under s.4(1) of the NCCTPR. That subsection requires a driver to drive "in compliance with the laws of the province and the municipality in which the driveway is situated." That wording requires drivers to comply with the Ottawa by-law that governs the 3+ HOV lane on the bridge. HTA s.154.1 only deals with provincial HOV lanes, all of which are 2+. I'm not a lawyer or paralegal, but I would think that, so long as the trial is at least six months after the offence date, the OP will be free and clear.
The charge probably should have been under s.4(1) of the NCCTPR. That subsection requires a driver to drive "in compliance with the laws of the province and the municipality in which the driveway is situated." That wording requires drivers to comply with the Ottawa by-law that governs the 3+ HOV lane on the bridge. HTA s.154.1 only deals with provincial HOV lanes, all of which are 2+.
I'm not a lawyer or paralegal, but I would think that, so long as the trial is at least six months after the offence date, the OP will be free and clear.
Can you provide a linkt to S.4(1) and S. 182(2) I'm looking here but I can't find much in this document: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/ ... -1044.html I'm pretty sure it was indeed an RCMP officer as I've seen them on that bridge before. Are you saying that the chances of getting it quashed over the incorrect charge are slim? Can they still amend it even after 6 months? I've already mailed the ticket requesting a court date and the officer to be present.[/quote] I think you will be able to get this quashed for incorrect charge. The court can amend clerical errors on a ticket at trial, such as the mistyping of the section number of the law or the slight misspelling of a name. However, in this case you were charged under the wrong piece of legislation and I don't think that counts as a simple clerical error. It is my understanding that in order to charge you under a different piece of legislation they would have to withdraw the original charge and file a new charge using the correct law, which they can't do after six month have passed from the date of the offence.
Can you provide a linkt to S.4(1) and S. 182(2)
I'm looking here but I can't find much in this document:
I'm pretty sure it was indeed an RCMP officer as I've seen them on that bridge before. Are you saying that the chances of getting it quashed over the incorrect charge are slim? Can they still amend it even after 6 months? I've already mailed the ticket requesting a court date and the officer to be present.[/quote]
I think you will be able to get this quashed for incorrect charge. The court can amend clerical errors on a ticket at trial, such as the mistyping of the section number of the law or the slight misspelling of a name. However, in this case you were charged under the wrong piece of legislation and I don't think that counts as a simple clerical error. It is my understanding that in order to charge you under a different piece of legislation they would have to withdraw the original charge and file a new charge using the correct law, which they can't do after six month have passed from the date of the offence.
I'm a little confused about this 6 month cut off period. In another thread you said that the charge can be amended even if six months have passed and jsherk said that it can happen "even DURING the trial if there is evidence to support the amendment". Does that mean that they can simply amend it at the trial even if my trial date is more than six months from the offence date?
Zatota wrote:
The charge probably should have been under s.4(1) of the NCCTPR. That subsection requires a driver to drive "in compliance with the laws of the province and the municipality in which the driveway is situated." That wording requires drivers to comply with the Ottawa by-law that governs the 3+ HOV lane on the bridge. HTA s.154.1 only deals with provincial HOV lanes, all of which are 2+.
I'm not a lawyer or paralegal, but I would think that, so long as the trial is at least six months after the offence date, the OP will be free and clear.
I'm a little confused about this 6 month cut off period. In another thread you said that the charge can be amended even if six months have passed and jsherk said that it can happen "even DURING the trial if there is evidence to support the amendment". Does that mean that they can simply amend it at the trial even if my trial date is more than six months from the offence date?
You're right. I wasn't fully focused when I wrote that. The prosecutor can amend the charge at any time. What I meant to say was that if you do win, the prosecutor withdraws the charge, etc., you cannot subsequently be charged with the correct offence after six months. If I were in your position, I wouldn't show up for trial. If the JP catches the incorrect section, he will quash the charge. If not, you'll win on appeal.
You're right. I wasn't fully focused when I wrote that. The prosecutor can amend the charge at any time. What I meant to say was that if you do win, the prosecutor withdraws the charge, etc., you cannot subsequently be charged with the correct offence after six months.
If I were in your position, I wouldn't show up for trial. If the JP catches the incorrect section, he will quash the charge. If not, you'll win on appeal.
But if I do show up and it's been six months and the original charge is still there, can they amend it once I ask the JP to quash it due to incorrect charge?
Zatota wrote:
You're right. I wasn't fully focused when I wrote that. The prosecutor can amend the charge at any time. What I meant to say was that if you do win, the prosecutor withdraws the charge, etc., you cannot subsequently be charged with the correct offence after six months.
If I were in your position, I wouldn't show up for trial. If the JP catches the incorrect section, he will quash the charge. If not, you'll win on appeal.
But if I do show up and it's been six months and the original charge is still there, can they amend it once I ask the JP to quash it due to incorrect charge?
I don't think that would work in this case. The cop didn't just put the incorrect section number on the ticket, he charged the OP using a piece of legislation that does not apply to the road the OP was driving on. I would have thought that in this scenario the best thing to do would be to show up to trial and show the JP that this piece of legislation does not apply to the road the OP was driving on at the time of the incident. While I know that they can amend tickets to fix clerical errors at trial, I don't think they can whole sale change the charge on you. To do that I think they would have to withdraw the original charge and issue a new summons, which they can't do after the six month statute of limitations.
Zatota wrote:
You're right. I wasn't fully focused when I wrote that. The prosecutor can amend the charge at any time. What I meant to say was that if you do win, the prosecutor withdraws the charge, etc., you cannot subsequently be charged with the correct offence after six months.
If I were in your position, I wouldn't show up for trial. If the JP catches the incorrect section, he will quash the charge. If not, you'll win on appeal.
I don't think that would work in this case. The cop didn't just put the incorrect section number on the ticket, he charged the OP using a piece of legislation that does not apply to the road the OP was driving on. I would have thought that in this scenario the best thing to do would be to show up to trial and show the JP that this piece of legislation does not apply to the road the OP was driving on at the time of the incident. While I know that they can amend tickets to fix clerical errors at trial, I don't think they can whole sale change the charge on you. To do that I think they would have to withdraw the original charge and issue a new summons, which they can't do after the six month statute of limitations.
You may be right. It's a completely different ballgame if the OP shows up having been charged under a provincial act and sees the charge changed to one under a federal act. Perhaps one of our "resident" experts could chime in.
You may be right. It's a completely different ballgame if the OP shows up having been charged under a provincial act and sees the charge changed to one under a federal act. Perhaps one of our "resident" experts could chime in.
OP: S.182(2) is simply the Disobey Sign charge, same penalty, 2 demerit points. As for the NCCTPR, the official Act is found here. All S.4(1) says is the Regs allow enforcement of any Provincial or Municipal traffic regulation by proxy. I won't say your chances are slim, but from my personal experience I would say you have at best a 50/50. I would say you're better off talking with the prosecutor and ask for NCCTPR S.6. Penalties are lower and there are no points as far as I know. I don't agree. I've seen it time and time again, especially with the NCCTPR, where the charge was amended at trial without issue. The six month limitation is to amend or charge a defendant in the first instance, but in this case the charge was laid within that time obviously. The amendment I am referring to is during the trial, thus as long as it goes to trial it can be done. Mind you the JP may always decline it and it does happen but not often; I'm only speaking from my personal experience though. Furthermore, case law has supported these amendments in the past as long as they are not prejudicial, i.e. if the spirit - and more importantly the jeopardy of the charge remains the similar. Swapping HTA to NCCTPR pursuant to the HTA is essentially the exact same charge, with the exact same penalties. Without getting into the weeds with the NCCTPR and all that, the fact is that it is not incorrect to charge under the HTA directly, because the NCCTPR is a higher Act referring to provincial legislation. In other words it's the exact same charge, but under a federal act instead of a provincial one. I know this sounds whacky to most people but it's one of those very many oddities in Ottawa... Where the OP has a better ground for negotiation is the 154.1 vs. 182(2) or NCCTPR 6. But even this is more or less a good ground because again, the idea is the disrespect of the HOV lane, which idea is the same whether you use 154.1, 6, 182(2) or even a By-Law. The only difference is the type of road, which is accessory to the action itself IMO. Hope this helps!
OP: S.182(2) is simply the Disobey Sign charge, same penalty, 2 demerit points.
As for the NCCTPR, the official Act is found here. All S.4(1) says is the Regs allow enforcement of any Provincial or Municipal traffic regulation by proxy.
I won't say your chances are slim, but from my personal experience I would say you have at best a 50/50. I would say you're better off talking with the prosecutor and ask for NCCTPR S.6. Penalties are lower and there are no points as far as I know.
daggx wrote:
I don't think that would work in this case. The cop didn't just put the incorrect section number on the ticket, he charged the OP using a piece of legislation that does not apply to the road the OP was driving on. I would have thought that in this scenario the best thing to do would be to show up to trial and show the JP that this piece of legislation does not apply to the road the OP was driving on at the time of the incident. While I know that they can amend tickets to fix clerical errors at trial, I don't think they can whole sale change the charge on you. To do that I think they would have to withdraw the original charge and issue a new summons, which they can't do after the six month statute of limitations.
I don't agree. I've seen it time and time again, especially with the NCCTPR, where the charge was amended at trial without issue.
The six month limitation is to amend or charge a defendant in the first instance, but in this case the charge was laid within that time obviously. The amendment I am referring to is during the trial, thus as long as it goes to trial it can be done. Mind you the JP may always decline it and it does happen but not often; I'm only speaking from my personal experience though. Furthermore, case law has supported these amendments in the past as long as they are not prejudicial, i.e. if the spirit - and more importantly the jeopardy of the charge remains the similar. Swapping HTA to NCCTPR pursuant to the HTA is essentially the exact same charge, with the exact same penalties.
Without getting into the weeds with the NCCTPR and all that, the fact is that it is not incorrect to charge under the HTA directly, because the NCCTPR is a higher Act referring to provincial legislation. In other words it's the exact same charge, but under a federal act instead of a provincial one. I know this sounds whacky to most people but it's one of those very many oddities in Ottawa...
Where the OP has a better ground for negotiation is the 154.1 vs. 182(2) or NCCTPR 6. But even this is more or less a good ground because again, the idea is the disrespect of the HOV lane, which idea is the same whether you use 154.1, 6, 182(2) or even a By-Law. The only difference is the type of road, which is accessory to the action itself IMO.
Hope this helps!
I am not a lawyer or para-legal: I do not offer legal advice nor should my comments be interpreted as such. I believe in respecting the law; don't be offended if I don't agree with you.
What is the penalty for NCCTPR 6? From what I can see 182(2) is essentially the same fine carrying 2 instead of 3 demerits but since I live in Quebec I shouldn't get any points.
devilsadvocate wrote:
OP: S.182(2) is simply the Disobey Sign charge, same penalty, 2 demerit points.
Where the OP has a better ground for negotiation is the 154.1 vs. 182(2) or NCCTPR 6. But even this is more or less a good ground because again, the idea is the disrespect of the HOV lane, which idea is the same whether you use 154.1, 6, 182(2) or even a By-Law. The only difference is the type of road, which is accessory to the action itself IMO.
Hope this helps!
What is the penalty for NCCTPR 6?
From what I can see 182(2) is essentially the same fine carrying 2 instead of 3 demerits but since I live in Quebec I shouldn't get any points.
So I got the same thing in January. Link: improper-use-of-high-occupancy-vehicle- ... t8039.html My court date is May 2. I assume I will be going to court before you about this matter, so I can certainly report back with what happened. So far, my understanding is to request them to drop the ticket once I meet with the prosecutor because of the wrong charge and show them that 154.1 (3) only applies to HOV lanes and not the Portage Bridge lane.
My court date is May 2. I assume I will be going to court before you about this matter, so I can certainly report back with what happened. So far, my understanding is to request them to drop the ticket once I meet with the prosecutor because of the wrong charge and show them that 154.1 (3) only applies to HOV lanes and not the Portage Bridge lane.
So I ended up missing the court date. I was expecting to receive a notice of conviction in the mail but when nothing arrived after a few weeks I called city to check the status of the ticket. They said "no funds owing" and instructed me to call the court and inquire. I called the court and the agent said that the ticket was withdrawn. Not sure why exactly, I guess I got lucky. If the officer didn't show up either would I still have gotten convicted in absence?
So I ended up missing the court date. I was expecting to receive a notice of conviction in the mail but when nothing arrived after a few weeks I called city to check the status of the ticket. They said "no funds owing" and instructed me to call the court and inquire. I called the court and the agent said that the ticket was withdrawn. Not sure why exactly, I guess I got lucky. If the officer didn't show up either would I still have gotten convicted in absence?
No, if you've set a trail date then the trial has to go ahead even if you are not there to give evidence on your behalf. The officer would take the stand and give evidence of the charge and you'd be convicted (except in one legendary case when the officer messed up the testimony and lost an unopposed trial !!). So, no, the charge was withdrawn prior to trial, likely because the crown saw something that was wrong.
No, if you've set a trail date then the trial has to go ahead even if you are not there to give evidence on your behalf. The officer would take the stand and give evidence of the charge and you'd be convicted (except in one legendary case when the officer messed up the testimony and lost an unopposed trial !!). So, no, the charge was withdrawn prior to trial, likely because the crown saw something that was wrong.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
If the defendant does not show up at trial, under the POA, a section 9.1 is conducted and without a hearing or the officer being on the stand a conviction is registered if the certificate of offence is regular on its face. The offcer is not required to be there for this process.
If the defendant does not show up at trial, under the POA, a section 9.1 is conducted and without a hearing or the officer being on the stand a conviction is registered if the certificate of offence is regular on its face.
The offcer is not required to be there for this process.
Not where I worked. Ex parte trials definitely occurred - very infrequently. Maybe it was only for summonses as opposed to trials as a result of a normal ticket........or else our courtroom worked differently ? You are, of course, correct about the Section 9.1 though so I'm not sure what was going on.
Decatur wrote:
If the defendant does not show up at trial, under the POA, a section 9.1 is conducted and without a hearing or the officer being on the stand a conviction is registered if the certificate of offence is regular on its face.
The offcer is not required to be there for this process.
Not where I worked. Ex parte trials definitely occurred - very infrequently. Maybe it was only for summonses as opposed to trials as a result of a normal ticket........or else our courtroom worked differently ? You are, of course, correct about the Section 9.1 though so I'm not sure what was going on.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
Congratulations! While it would have been interesting to see this one play out in court I'm still glad that you managed to come out of this on the winning side.
Congratulations! While it would have been interesting to see this one play out in court I'm still glad that you managed to come out of this on the winning side.
Hi, I am new to the forum. I have been trying to get information off of here and www.ticketcombat.com for my case.
I was given a ticket for going 122km/h in a posted 100km/h zone at Hwy 401 east at Thickson Rd in Whitby ON on April 10th, 2009.
I find this absolutely absurd, since I was in the left most lane of the 401 approximately(within 5km/h) following the speed of traffic in my lane. The guy in…
Hey this is my first ticket so as much information that people can provide will be appreciated. I was making the drive home going around 90kph(in a 80) behind what I knew was an undercover police car. The cop abruptly pulled to the side and pulled back in behind me to pull me over. Now I reduced my speed to below 80 when the cop pulled to the side but he claimed he had me clocked at 109kph and…
On Wednesday I attended court at 1530 Markham Road, courtroom E2, in order to fight my speeding ticket. My original plan was to plead not guilty, and to watch all the people who went before me, the process, the Prosecutor and the Justice Of The Peace so I could strategize and form the best plan for my defence at trial. I had done some research online and sort of knew I wanted to defend myself,…
About 5 months ago I was driving along a two-way road approaching an intersection. The road had a left/ straight turning lane and a right turning lane. There was an 18 wheel gravel truck occupying the left lane at a red light. I pulled behind the truck intending to drive straight. After not moving for about 1 second, I check my rear view mirror, signaled and changed lanes to the right…
I am currently working for an auto parts delivery company and they contracted me to work as a courier.
As I left my base to make my first delivery which was less than 300 meters away from the shop, I had my seat belt off because i was under the impression, according to Section 106 Exception #6 subsection (c) of the highway traffic act, that I would be exempted from the seat belt law. The rule…
Got a ticket yesterday for "Insecure Load" contrary to HTA Sec 111(2). $160. I was pulling a utility trailer in which I had loaded a steel and wood cabinet. Total length of cabinet is 57.5". 14.75" (1/4 of the cabinet) was sticking out over the side of the trailer at about a 45 degree angle, the rest (3/4) was inside the trailer. The trailer has sides 24" high. I didn't have a tie-down or bungee…
I've been researching for months for defence strategy and basic trial information regarding my speeding ticket. However, the information is so conflicting that I have no confidence whatsoever that I know what I'm doing.
I didn't get this info from a friend of a friend, it came from this website, court officials, case laws, and a consultation with a traffic ticket fighting company.
So I was driving east bound pulling an empty tandem trailer on a gravel highway. Eventually I caught up to a truck pulling a fifth wheel. The speed limit was 70km/h and I don't quite remember but I'm almost 100% that the guy in front of me was driving at 60km/h. After being behind him for a few kilometers and getting two cracks in my windshield from rocks off his tires, I decided to pass him. I…
I have been driving for over 10 years without any tickets and accidents what so ever. Unfortunately my luck ran out this past Friday; when the officer pulled me over doing 80 in a 50 zone in Mississauga, Ontario. Officer was very friendly and polite not to mention nice enough to reduce the charge to 15KM.
On the speeding ticket it now says doing 65km in a 50 zone. Never having a speeding…
hi everyone im just wondering if its right for a cop to have my car impounded and give me a traffic ticket for improper plates when my car didnt leave my property, yes i knew the plates werent to my car but on private property it dont matter aslong as it dosent go onto public property. am i right with this that i shouldnt have gotten the ticket or my car impounded?????????????
Have been busy and haven't had much time to follow up on this...
Went to court having not received disclosure (and was not organized enough to apply for a stay), so the trial was adjourned. They photocopied the officer's ticket and notes and provided a log sheet from the plane. I've sent another request for the rest of the disclosure items.
So here's my question -- can an officer amend the ticket…
Hi guys, I got pulled over last night and was ticketed with HTA 172, I was going 157 on a 100 on 400N and was wondering what I should do. I was using cruise control but the guy in the lane to my left was driving into my lane irresponsibly to I sped up to get ahead of him and just my luck that's when an OPP cruiser pulled up behind me flashing his lights. My court date is at the end of the month…
If anyone can answer this I would greatly appreciate it.
Friday morning I checked my mail and received a letter from the MTO stating that under section 47(1) of the HTA the Registrar of Motor Vehicles has decided to suspend my driving privilege for medical reasons. This was due to a report submitted by a physician in compliance with section 203 of the HTA. Enclosed with that letter were forms to…
Ok so looking for some advice in regards to my wife's speeding ticket 120k in 100 (I was in vehicle so witnessed most - but was resting at initial clock.)
whats the likelihood of positive outcome of an 11b (or an officer no show, which I suspect doesn't really happen as much as web/Ads would have you believe) of 8months.
Wife REALLY doesn't want to go, and of course I'm the one doing all of the…
I know I shouldn't have driving but I slept at my buddies' place and I thought I was ok to drive in the morning.. needless to say I still drove and got pulled over.
Background details:
I was pulled over in the morning last week, apparently going 120 km/hr on 90km Northbound DVP. Two cop cars tailed me for a bit, saw them in my rearview mirror while on the left lane, slowed down to…
I got two tickets on Feb 20 2011. One for red light, and the other for Stop sign. I knew I had a good chance at getting off on the red light, because the officer couldn't actually see the light facing me. He was at an opposite angle, further up the street.
I set a court date for both tickets. On April 22 I moved to a new place. I went to the Service Ontario location and renewed my licence…
Winnipeg's police officers have been told to issue more traffic tickets, in part to increase revenue.
And a union representing cops says the move could hurt their efforts to curb the city's gang violence.
Police Chief Keith McCaskill said last night he -- and he alone, without input from Mayor Sam Katz -- recently made the call to patrolling officers and to those in specialized units to step up…
I'm wondering if anyone could enlighten me on what to do about the following scenario:
I was pulled over by a YRP constable because I only had one front head light working. Upon being pulled over, I also realized my insurance card was expired by one month and my car permit was not on me at all. (It doesn't matter now but my valid insurance card was sitting at home in an envelope…
I have a wicked prosecutor in my area, he is an evil man and will lie and cheat, whatever is necessary for him to win. I got a yellow light infraction ticket and the cop was a no show. I requested the charge dismissed and it went like this:
Me: I request the charge be dismissed because the officer is not here
Prosecutor: No, we are going to adjourn the trial so the officer can attend
Accident happened at a regular intersection with turning lanes and lights. I was turning left. The light turned yellow, and the car approaching sped up to make the light. I thought he was stopping, so i made the turn. At the time of the collision the light was red.
I understand that it is my fault. I'm just wondering what my best course of action is.
alright well to get started ive developed a passion for longboarding
for those of you who dont already know a longboard is a big skateboard too heavy for tricks and stuff but boy can they ever go fast
my hobbies include going up the escarpment here in hamilton and stoney creek and riding down the roads leading to the lower part of the city. just wondering here. what would happen if i was going down…
My court date is nearing at old city hall at appeals court.
iwhats going to happen and what do i do?
do I present my certificate of offence and point out to the judge the fine was incorrect, I did not appear and am now appealing on the grounds the Justice of the peace erred and failed to quash the ticket on the basis of the certificate not being properly examined and is not complete and regular on…
