hwybear wrote:Just searched and

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic2074.html

Thanks. Of course someone should fix the drivers handbook as it is apparently misleading.

Dave

hwybear wrote:That's an easy one - Driver A has the right of way.
There was another thread specifically on this, I will try to find it.

I would appreciate the link to the other thread. I'm also curious how this is "easy" there is no direction in the HTA as to right of way in this situation. In fact I can't even find anything that specifies the right of way at a 4 way stop in the HTA.

I was under the impression that anyone turning left had to give right of way ?

Dave

I'm sure this has been asked, but I did search for right of way and couldn't find anything Who has the right of way at an intersection with a two way stop sign. Person A going south turning left arrives at intersection first Person B going north going straight through intersection arrives after Person A I've always thought person B has the right of way but I can't find anything explicitly in the HTA about right of way. It does say: No driver or operator of a vehicle in an intersection shall turn left across the path of a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction unless he or she has affo...

Hi,

I can't find the actual section that deals with this ?

Dave

Has this been discussed before

Rather interesting points of law.

Dave

****************************
LINK removed by HTA Moderator Team

This issue has been addressed before and anarchy is not supported by this site.

THREAD LOCKED

Officer was a no show charges withdrawn.

I think this is more common now that we have all these agents. Agents deal with most of the cases, and when they do they negotiate. Of course now that I think about it, it's in their best interest to negotiate. If they embarass the prosecutor their future negotiations will be prejudiced. So it would be rare for a charge to go to trial.

It is possible that I know the JP. Does he have to recuse himself ?

What is the procedure ?

Dave

The officer did not see something... "no use of a seatbelt". So this is considered evidence ? There are so many things he does not see. I would think evidence would be he saw the seatbelt unlatched. I rarely have the seatbelt unlatched as evidence as that is not easy to see. It is way easier to explain that no portion of the seat belt assembly was observed diagonal across the upper torso of the driver. Just b/c someone leaves the hwy (such as pulling into a convenience store, mall, gas station etc... ) does not make the offence no longer valid, otherwise everyone would just drive of...

OPS Copper wrote:That is unless he saw him not wearing his seatbelt on the road as STOPPED him in the driveway..

ops

He alleges that he did not see the seatbelt about 1km away from our driveway. He followed my son to our driveway. Did not pull him over, rather once my son had parked he pulled up to the curb by our driveway. At this point I would think there is no reason for my son to have his seatbelt on. He is parked in a driveway. Which is private property and the HTA does not apply.

hwybear wrote:

davec wrote: Given that the officer allegedly didn't see the seatbelt. Is this evidence ? My point would be that evidence requires you to actually see something, not seeing something is not evidence ?

The officer did not see something... "no use of a seatbelt".

So this is considered evidence ? There are so many things he does not see. I would think evidence would be he saw the seatbelt unlatched.

I have disclosure, no mention of seeing the seatbelt latch. Looked at that site, going with officers ability to see. As it turns out the officer "pulled him over" in our driveway so no reason to have his seatbelt on there.

My son was charged with failure to wear seatbelt.

The officer observed him driving by from about 20 meters away. Given that the officer allegedly didn't see the seatbelt. Is this evidence ? My point would be that evidence requires you to actually see something, not seeing something is not evidence ?

Dave

neo333 wrote:dave, I recommend that you NOT use their form. It usually does not allow you to ask for what you really want and need. They cannot force you to use their form.

Disclosure requests are usually sent to prosecution (not court) as they are responsible for the disclosure. Ticketcombat.ca has a good example of a disclosure request letter (edit for your specific case).

I did use the form from ticketcombat.com they just phoned to ask how we wanted the information. They would not mail it, either pick it up or fax. I asked why and they said that mail was not provable.

Dave

I just went to the courthouse in Orangeville and presented the request for disclosure to the clerk. I was told I had to use their form and send the request to another address which is the prosecutors office. I am planning on mailing it, but should I send it to the court, or the prosecutors office ?

If the offense (failure to wear seatbelt) occurred 1km away from where the ticket says it did. Is that relevant ?

The officer observed me without my seatbelt at an intersection, I then put it on and he followed me to my house (1km away) and wrote the ticket with the offense occurring on my street.

Dave