Not all of the requirements you've cited apply right at the 4500 kg cut off though. For example, you don't need a name on the side of the vehicle unless you're registered for or actually weight 8182 kg or more. There are nuances to the CMV requirements that really do lend this area well to receiving professional assistance if you are in this heavily regulated field. For example, it's not whether your trip is over 100 km of driving when you are required to keep a log book, but whether and destination you drive to is outside a 100 km radius (as the crown flies) from your company's registered hom...

One of the elements of the offence for using cell phone (as for any other moving or non-moving violation) is that the defending was driving a "motor vehicle" as defined in s. 1 of the Highway Traffic Act. The officer's mis-identification or imprecise identification (i.e. "grey car") of the motor vehicle may go to the weight of the officer's evidence, but it doesn't necessarily preclude the Justice from finding that the defendant was driving a motor vehicle. How much weight the Justice should give such evidence is a product of your advocacy skills...which is why lawyers are ...

As a matter of law you cannot be convicted simply for missing an early resolution meeting. Sure you can. Provincial Offences Act s. 9. It means you're deemed not to dispute the charge. For failing to attend the meeting our ticket will likely be placed into a pile to be brought into court sometime in the near future for a conviction in abstential under s. 9. 9. (1) A defendant is deemed to not wish to dispute the charge where, (b) the defendant requested a meeting with the prosecutor in accordance with section 5.1 but did not attend the scheduled meeting with the prosecutor; or Action by justi...

R v Grech-Vennare, 2013 ONCJ 278

http://canlii.ca/en/on/oncj/doc/2013/20 ... cj278.html

In 2008 the Court of Appeal said that the presumption was of strict liability for HTA offences (Brampton v Kanda), however that is only the starting point. Many offences have been addressed in specific cases both before and after Kanda. You'd have to do your research.

Ambiguous signage might form part of a due diligence defence if the offence is one of strict liability.

Is there a way to find out who? Through disclosure maybe? Don't we have the right to challenge our accuser? We don't have a strict right to face our accuser like the do in the US based on the confrontation clause of the 6th amendment. What we have is a right, through disclosure which is mandated by s. 7 of the Charter, to see all the evidence the the crown has against us in order to make full answer and defence to the charge. Where the initial complainant has evidence to give, that will include information from them (i.e. a statement) and usually information about them (i.e. name at the very ...

There is an ongoing challenge to s. 68.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, which mandates speed limiting devices for commercial motor vehicles. It will be heard soon by the Ontario Court of Justice, sitting as an appeal court from the decision of the justice of the peace who ruled the legislation unconstitutional.

There was a preliminary set of reasons released recently regarding fresh evidence in the appeal: http://canlii.ca/en/on/oncj/doc/2013/20 ... cj213.html

For those who are interested in this issue, keep watching for the reasons for decision in R v Michaud.

That would make much more sense. I know x-copper is a reputable organization that's been around for a while. I would be surprised if they were acting outside of their scope of practice as paralegals.

What would be the purpose of failing to accept the disclosure? You requested it...presumably you want/need it... Wouldn't that just mean you get it later? To what end?

I feel obligated to point out that paralegals aren't allowed to represent someone on an impaired or over 80 charge. You can read here on the Law Society of Upper Canada website that their practice is restricted to offences for which the maximum penalty is 6 months in jail (a regular summary conviction offence): http://www.lsuc.on.ca/with.aspx?id=2147491230#s1q1 You can also see under s. 255(1)(c) of the Criminal Code that an impaired or over 80 conviction (if prosecuted by summary conviction) has a maximum penalty of 18 months (it's a super-summary offence). I would STRONGLY suggest you consul...

Not just CAN withdraw a charge, but MUST if there is no reasonable prospect of conviction - per the Crown Policy Manual. To pursue a conviction where there is no reasonable prospect of conviction (because the facts don't support it) would be unethical. That being said, it may well be that the prosecutor did feel there was a reasonable prospect of conviction on careless, even if it wasn't the most ideal charge for the circumstances, so I'm in NO WAY accusing this particular prosecutor of misconduct - obviously I don't know all the facts or what their thought process was. Remember, careless is a...

You should be clear about whether your case is being "reopened" or "appealed". Reopenings are governed by s. 11 of the POA. They are available only within 15 days of the conviction. Outside that time frame you would normally be talking about a full appeal, which is governed by Part VII of the POA (though possibly the court is reopening your case even if you are outside the 15 days, obviously I don't know). For appeals, s. 111(1) says you DO have to pay the fine before appealing, although I believe you can request an exception to that. Aside from whether you have to pay the ...

If you are considering filling an 11(b) motion you need to divide up all the time periods (between each appearance or event) and think about whether they are attributable to normal intake, crown delay, institutional delay, or defence delay. It's only where the crown and institutional delay is unacceptably long that you are potentially eligible for a stay. Also, the amount of delay alone is not determinative, prejudice (which can be specific or inferred) is also a significant factor. With respect to the inadequate disclosure, you are appear to be talking about a stay for a violation of your rig...

Option 2 is Plea of Guilty- Submissions to Penalty. From what I understand, it means that the payable fine can be decreased from $220. However, would this mean that my demerit points/insurance would be still the same as if I chose option 1? My main concern is to not get destroyed by my insurance company for like 5 years. The points go automatically with whatever offence you are convicted of or plead guilty to, regardless of the $ amount of the fine you paid. Also, insurance companies care about the offence, not the points or the amount of the fine. Of course parenthetically, you can observe t...