The case you're referring that gained media attention was commonly titled everywhere as "Is a three-point turn a U-turn?". It's where a Brampton man driving north, turned left into a driveway, reversed his car and proceeded south. He was found guilty. Section 143 of the Highway Traffic Act refers to a U-turn as a turn "so as to proceed in the opposite direction," Quick summary of ruling: "A three-point turn as a driving manoeuvre is not defined in the Highway Traffic Act . . . and as such, a three-point turn for the purposes of the Highway Traffic Act is not legally d...

I think you're actually in a very solid position.

I seem to recall reading about a similar situation recently (I believe it was in the news?). Anyway, the gentleman in that case was charged with same having turned, pulled into a driveway and then backed up. Having said that, you stopped for 15 seconds and have the dash cam footage which confirms. Request a court date and present your dash cam footage. You can demonstrate that you didn't complete an illegal turn - you turned onto the driveway and stopped and began a new maneuver after a significant break.

I think you have it backwards.

The By-Law on the books is 555-00 but the By-Law written by hand on the offence notice is 555/2000.

That would make them the same thing?

Edit: the latter (to me) looks like 555 out of 2000.

Earlier today I received an offence notice in the city of Mississauga. Rather than a charge under HTA the officer issued a charge under City of Mississauga By-Law 555/2000. The correct By-Law is 555-00 so I'm wondering if this is a fatal error and/or an error that will allow me to have the charge withdrawn? I certainly appreciate that the officer was looking to help me by charging the By-Law infraction rather than the HTA infraction. I'm curious if the officer intentionally wrote an incorrect By-Law so I could fight the offence notice and have it dismissed? Any input and suggestions/assistance...