racer wrote:Spambots will be banned immediately upon discovery, as well as any users who do not have a single post for more than 30 days, as this is typical of spambots.

I hope that it's 30 days from registration and not just any 30-day period.

Hello Bear, Alexo....did not take that offensive or upsetting. It was not meant to be. I see your view. There are reasons behind what you mention and not what you might think. Then please educate me. Also have to admit there are bad apples in every job thou. True. However, the barrel is judged by the actions of the good apples when they discover the presence of bad apples among them. If they let them stay, the rot spreads. Things usually start small but if nobody is willing to come forward and say STOP, we may eventually get this . Why am i telling you this? Because I'm a stupid optimist that,...

Just bought my 1st GPS. Pretty decent little outfit. Have used it on a couple of short trips and got me to the destintation properly. Hello Bear, I hope your GPS does not include an MP3 player, a JPEG viewer, a calculator or a bluetooth module, otherwise bill 118 forbids its use in Ontario. 78. (1) No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle that is equipped with, carries, contains or has attached to it a television, computer or other device with a display screen if the display screen is visible to the driver. Exceptions (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of, (a) a global pos...

Hello Bear, There is a rant coming. I will try to keep it short and civil but make no mistake, I feel very strongly about it. This kind of stuff should never ever happen. Unfortunately employees like this are in every profession and taint/discredit/disgrace peoples thoughts on the remainder of the employees. I respectfully disagree. Did the "remainder of the employees" publicly denounced the offenders and demanded harsh punishments for them, including getting them kicked out of the "profession", permanently? No? Then you should not be surprised when the populace has as much...

Hello Bear,

hwybear wrote:About 3/4 way down is the officers signature and DATE to the right is the supervisor signature and DATE. How does this compare to the date of the collision at the top?

The Officer's signature and date is 6 months after the "accident date"
The supervisor's signature & date are missing (not filled in).

hwybear wrote:

alexo wrote:The interesting part is that the "Traffic Collision Report" I got on the spot (with the ticket) has quite a number of differences from the copy I got in the disclosure. That one was dated 6 months after the fact..

The roadside copy is just basic info to share amongst drivers, the submitted copy has diagrams, check boxes on the side, supervisor signature, if witness, towing info etc.

Is it normal procedure to file it half a year after the fact and invent some information (e.g., speed of vehicles)?

Hi Bookm, thank you for the reply. Sure the Court COULD allow the ticket to be amended, but you would want to object to this. You have prepared your case based on the information shown on the charging document. Your court date is now and you are prepared to proceed. It is not your fault the crown is not prepared. As backup, you might want to have your lawyer print you out the case laws for: R. v. Schepens, supra, note 69 R. v. Oakcrest Food Stores (1976) Ltd. (1982), 17 M.V.R. 103 (B.C.S.C.) I don't have them personally but I have a book on HTA offences and it lists these cases under "Def...

However, I was charged with violating 142(1) and not 148. I believe that the best strategy would be to contest it on that grounds. What do you guys, think? I do not think that they can amend it during the trial as that would be a completely different charge. Or could they? Yes the court can amend it. That seems wrong. I understand amending erroneous facts but changing the whole charge? "I'm sorry your worship, we'd like to amend the charge from trespassing to theft". Wouldn't that run afoul of 34(4)(c) and (d)? Considerations on amendment (4) The court shall, in considering whether ...

hwybear wrote:A few issues here. By HTA police have to submit the Collision Report within 10 days. Our internal policy is 7 days.

The collision report I got in the disclosure was dated 6 months after the fact.

My understanding of the filing procedure is incomplete but it seems to me that what needs to be filed in 7 days is the "certificate of offence" which is, according to my understanding, the ticket.

First, thanks for the positive feedback on my site. You deserve it. As I don't know the details, I can speculate that you asked for disclosure, they did nothing for eight months and then just before the trial, somebody gave you a couple of photocopies. If they did not give you enough time prior to trial to review disclosure, and as long as you can demonstrate to the court that you were diligent in attempting to obtain disclosure, that should be sufficient for you to request an adjournment (on their time, not yours) to review the material which hopefully can lead to an 11b application; More or...

More or less. Cop's notes say I "cut the corner". Interesting since he arrived an hour after the fact.. Does not really matter how long after that the police arrive. Once arriving the officer will begin by talking to drivers, looking at physical evidence etc and try to determine what heppened. Then mandatory to complete a "Traffic Collision Report", and make notes when necessary to "refresh" the officers memory. The interesting part is that the "Traffic Collision Report" I got on the spot (with the ticket) has quite a number of differences from the copy...

Thanks for your reply hwybear.

hwybear wrote:I would be guess that HTA 148 applies to the description provided.

Passing meeting vehicles - vehicle on highway meeting another shall turn out to the right from centre of roadway, allowing the other vehicle one-half of the roadway

That sounds about right.
However, I was charged with violating 142(1) and not 148.

I believe that the best strategy would be to contest it on that grounds.
What do you guys, think?

I do not think that they can amend it during the trial as that would be a completely different charge. Or could they?

Thank you.

lawmen wrote:You said there was no accident i.e., damage or injury?

Did I? I'm sorry, English is not my native language and I am even less familiar with legal terms.

When I said "collision" I meant an accident.
There was no injury but there was damage to the vehicles.

This is really a great example to request disclosure including a request for an explanation and clarification of the charge. Let them do the work. They must bring home to the accused what he did wrong. You are asking "what did I do?" and "How are you going to prove it?" Unfortunately, it is a bit too late for that. I won't go into too much details (representation gone wrong) but basically what I have now is disclosure (cop's notes, ticket and accident report), a trial in a couple of weeks and some research I managed to do. I think I have a case but I'll be grateful for sug...

lawmen wrote:read this site.
www.ticketcombat.com/

Already did (great resource) and that what prompted these questions.