Search found 33 matches

Im wondering, if the guy wasnt drunk, but still his mistake and got seriously injured. Could he sue her because she wasnt even supposed to be on the road in the first place since she wasnt insured?"

im not saying/implying the insurance didnt do their job, its obvious they did and they always do. Im talking about a due diligence defense for yourself so that you can sue the drunk because you had every right in your mind to be on the road with your car while he did not. Re-read my last 2 posts and it will answer your last question.

The witness still has to prove you were going that speed. Without a device that measures speed, thats impossible. A lawyer/paralegal will get you that charge dropped in a heartbeat.

As for the letter from the insurance company, here's what the province says about deemed date of service:

Deemed date of service

(2) Notice sent by registered mail under clause (1) (a) or by mail under clause (1) (b) shall be deemed to have been given on the seventh day after the mailing unless the person to whom the notice is sent establishes ...

you might want to search more on due diligence as well, you might have a chance. A way corporations protect themselves with this defense is how they prove they had a system in place that verifies periodically some elements. In your case ,you could possibly argue that your couple act as an organization, and that within your "organization" you have ...

I understand that you think drunk driving is much worse than driving without insurance, but unfortunately the consequences could be just as bad. both were not supposed to be driving on the roads so you're both at fault. Fact is you neglected your responsibility and you took that risk every time you took your car. I mean you are obliged to carry ...

^^sounds like good advice. But it sounds plausible that its only one ticket. Let's say a 45$ ticket, add administrative and collection fees and then compound interest. I dont know the rate for late fines but lets say now 85$ (ticket+fees) at 8% for 24 years.... 85 x 1.08^24 = 539$

Since when the insurance wasnt in force?

Those matches like to play with fire at home, but overseas, their attitude is much improved!

Thanks again for the clarification, along with the references.

After calling the prosecutor's office, the summons to appear date is sooner than any date he could meet me.

Thanks for the clarification, but isnt the arrestation not possible for a first offense?

Driving while drivers licence suspended

53. (1) Every person who drives a motor vehicle or street car on a highway while his or her drivers licence is suspended under an Act of the Legislature or a regulation made thereunder is guilty of an offence and on ...

True, its a bit much, MP's are leaders in the field, forming police corps all around the world! just kidding. I just wish for more education a little more than punishments. Too many drivers out there now i suppose. anyway im out, enough reading on laws for tonight!

The best advice on how to proceed here would be straight from your insurance rep, but im pretty sure that you need to win that trial first.

If if find something helpful to you along my search, I'll post here. And I'll gladly do so, Im a bit offended by how we can be treated by cops at times. Sometimes it seems that either you are a cop or trash ...

thanks daggx, i really appreciate it. Im now starting to understand all this.

OPS, thats probably because he agreed to it because he had no one to get it for him. Or because they never appealed. It's a gamble where odds are usually in your favor (because they dont know their rights)

from the MTO:

Can I appeal the impoundment?

Yes, a vehicle owner/plate holder can appeal an impoundment on the following grounds:

Vehicle ...

if you read the MTO website, as in the source link i provided, you will find that if the owner of the vehicle were to appeal, towing costs would be at the OPP's expense. So yes he can tow it, but his department would have to pay for it and im sure some good explaining to do.

So he's not doing me a favor by not towing, he's saving costs for the OPP.

its even on the OPP website... and im under the assumption that 2 OPP officers(?) out of 2 would have me believe otherwise.

http://www.opp.ca/ecms/index.php?id=540

Changes to Vehicle Impoundment Program Authority

UPDATE - The OPP have posted a Request For Proposals to the http://www.merx.com

On July 1, 2011 the Ministry of Transportation ...

You most certainly can tow the vehicle. I have countless times. The majority of the time I offer the driver to get someone there to drive it.

Not unless they were suspended by court order or by criminal code convictions. If you did, they could successfully appeal and you might have some explanation to do since your office would have to reimburse ...

double post

OPS Copper wrote:Cop does not tow the vehicle, which they could have done at your expense. (...)

And here's why I feel the need to inquire about my rights because you cant trust the guy wearing black shoes and white socks to tell you on the side of the road. You cannot get towed for suspension for unpaid fines.

Thanks for the heads up copper. But im not complaining about the ride, im merely inquiring about his refusal to put the car seat. And im not complaining in court, im but trying to understand my rights, privileges and duty on a forum on the internet. this is all new to me after 15 years of being licenced and driving. im not looking for compassion ...

Im just confused. so what is subsections 106 (2), (3) and (4)? i thought that didnt include subsection 8?

So he committed an offence by transporting my child without a car seat which I offered to?

found it thanks, although the exemption for subsection 8 is as follows:

8.1 (1) The following are exempt from complying with subsections 8 (2), (3) and (4):

1. The driver of a taxicab, bus or public vehicle, while transporting a passenger for hire.

2. The driver of an ambulance.

3. Revoked: O. Reg. 236/09, s. 3 (1).


Im not sure wether or not ...

Thats very confusing, and if he says he had taken the weight in consideration too, like any reasonable person would do, he wasnt doing any offence in his right mind, but legal help would be advisable for this charge. Also considering the time he lost, the costs of taxi, tow, impound, i think the lesson is learned.

^^Like he said the door opening is another matter, but will be helpful in your case. the article states:
Vehicles or equestrians overtaking others

(5) Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaking another vehicle or equestrian shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision with the ...

What i meant by "hear say" is part of the rules ovf evidence: The cop cannot relate any information that was said by someone else. That is called hearsay and is inadmissible. So when the cop is reading his notes, assuming he is there, you stand-up and say "objection! Hearsay!" Then he has no evidence to prosecute.

If the witness shows up in the ...

For the first careless driving charge, i would get the charges dropped on "hearsay".
For the second one, depending on disclosure, the witness might not want to show up in court, so you could use the same defense. if not, your word against his, and if its a strict liability, just create a benefit of the doubt that you have done everything to avoid ...

i dont think compassion has anything to do with (3) The driver of a motor vehicle on a highway is required to ensure that a toddler passenger is secured as set out in subsection (6). O. Reg. 195/05, s. 1.

And I have seen people get charged with "driving" while suspended even when they were just sitting in a car with the keys in the ignition.