Hey, I entered a street from the east, and drove west. I saw a sign that said parking was enforced until 9pm and about 5 meters west the sign i parked infront of a pay station. The sign post nor the pay station said anything about a permit after 12:01am. I paid went back in the direction in which i came. I returned to my car at 1am and got a ticket. I canvased the street, and near the end of the street, about 100m west of my car, there was another sign that said you need a permit. I never travelled in that direction and parked right in front of a valid sign. Shouldn't both signs have had the &...

Unfortunately, I don't believe it will be a fatal error and they can amend it in court. The fact they got your correct driver's license info will allow them to do that. If you were not driving, they wouldn't have been able to pull you over, get your license and write it down. I'm assuming the car is in your dad's name, and that's why they made a mistake and wrote it down. The flip-side would also be true; if your name was right but your license number was wrong, they can amend that as well. I would suggest describing what you did, or what the police officer is saying you did so we can get a be...

wow, thanks a lot for taking the time to write that! i guess i need to sit down and review it more thoroughly as i just read it over quickly.

despite the fact it had to do with "standard practice," maybe Schnall didn't consider R. v. Thompson, 2001 CanLII 24186 because the Breathalyzer unit is a whole different beast than a radar? the other cases were likely to be more similar to the one at hand.

guess I have to do some more research.

thanks again!

hey, sorry to resurrect an old thread, but i have a trial tomorrow and would appreciate some clarification: the cop was on general patrol and charged me with speeding. He did not mention in his notes he tested the mounted radar unit in his moving vehicle. I received disclosure and am prepared to make a motion to not permit any other evidence suggesting that the radar was tested if it is brought up. I was just wondering if there have been any other precedences after R v Niewiadomski [2004] OJ No 478 that would suggest that the notation is not necessary when the accurate of an instrument is in q...