Hi all. Has anyone here successfully used an 11b argument to dismiss a red light camera ticket?

My offence was in late 2014. I requested an "early resolution" meeting with the prosecutor. It took place about 7 months after the offence (no delay on my part -- they must be backed up). At the meeting, I decided to go to trial and it is now scheduled for just over a year from the offence date.

Does this sound like an acceptable 11b argument? Or can they argue that I delayed the trial by requesting an early resolution meeting?

I was nabbed in Port Hope, but this should apply to other areas too. The defendant in this case was totally unprepared, so he didn't even mount a real defence (and in fact his own witness said that he was speeding). The useful info was in the air officer's testimony: - the timing device is the Robic Sport SC-888, he mentioned the time of testing (before and after shift) but not the procedure - hash marks are placed at 500m apart, and the officer testified that he was present at the time of painting and has personally measured each "quadrant" to be exactly 500m and tested this measure...

The prosecutor can't request an amendment unless you plead "not guilty" and proceed to trial. So, yes -- you will be able to plead "guilty" before they have the opportunity to amend the charge. Might be a good idea for you to go to court one day and observe a trial. It helped me to understand how trials proceed.

For anyone who was following this...

I prepared myself for court and had arguments for both quashing the ticket and staying the charge for non-disclosure. As it turns out, one of the officers didn't show...almost anticlimactic, but I'll take it.

I managed to listen to a full trial of the evidence for the aerial surveillance program, so if anyone is interested, I can lend some advice as to the testimony of the officers.

Thanks to all for the help...this board is a GREAT resource, as are the regulars who post here.

Wow...I hate court... Drove 1.5 hrs to file my stay application yesterday...had my 4F and affidavit prepared. Went to the desk and clerk swore my affidavit. Told her I need to go serve the prosecutor...she says his office is over there, but he's not there. You can make an appointment or try on Monday but no guarantees. He has no secretary and sets his own schedule...so for now, it's just a locked door. So I ask who receives paperwork for him when he's away. Clerk says that they do. So I ask if I can leave prosecutor's copy with her. She says yes and I leave 2 copies of 4F and sworn affidavit. ...

Thanks to all for the comments. Hwybear -- seems like the case law supports your method (since the amendment is made in court). Personally, I like the idea of a big X in the code box for ALL tickets :lol: Ticketcombat -- thanks for spelling it out. I wouldn't have thought of the second argument. A couple of quick questions -- from reading your site, it doesn't appear that I need to file paperwork for a motion to quash, correct? (just bring it up at arraignment and provide copies of the case) Also, it appears that I won't be getting a response to my "missing items" disclosure requests...

Appreciate the input hwybear...always nice to get a different perspective.

Can I ask -- have you ever modified a ticket after issuing it to the driver? Or, more importantly, have you ever been told that it was OK to do so?

Has anyone used (or heard of using) this defense? And can a JP deny the motion in spite of the case law?

I'm no lawyer, so arguing the legality of amending a notice outside of court worries me a bit, but it seems like a valid argument based on the above decision.

Hate to reply to myself, but I managed to find a smilar incident in CanLii.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/20 ... 13711.html

The error was in the date of the ticket, and the officer corrected the original before filing with the court (after giving an unchanged copy to the driver). The ticket was quashed and the appeal was denied.

Question remains -- does this quash apply to all such alterations before trial or just this specific flaw?

Have been busy and haven't had much time to follow up on this... Went to court having not received disclosure (and was not organized enough to apply for a stay), so the trial was adjourned. They photocopied the officer's ticket and notes and provided a log sheet from the plane. I've sent another request for the rest of the disclosure items. So here's my question -- can an officer amend the ticket after he provides me with a copy? My version is all typed with an "X" in the Witness "No" box and no Code (blank). His photocopied version adds a handwritten "X" in the W...

Thanks liveontheedge and ticketcombat. Your knowledge is much appreciated. How do you force (as opposed to request) an adjournment? You are called and say "Your Worship, the prosecutor has failed to provide disclosure/adequate disclosure and therefore I am forcing an adjournment". I'm not being silly, I'm just wondering how to word it (assuming the prosecutor is ready to proceed, the cop is there, and the prosecutor won't willingly request an adjournment). Also, if the case is adjourned, how do you apply for costs? If you have to drive an hour to get to the court, do you charge by th...

How do you know if the cop is present (assuming you can't remember what he looks like)? Is the prosecutor required to tell you if the officer is present?

Also, wouldn't you have to request an adjournment before arraignment (according to Ticketcombat's site)? So if you "play the game" and plead "not guilty" after arraignment, have you missed the opportunity to request an adjournment for lack of disclosure?

Just found this thread after posting a very similar one in the wrong forum (thanks to the mod for moving it)...

Ticketcombat -- you mentioned that if Bookm's request was made to the Crown, there would be a strong argument for dismissal rather than adjournment. My situation is exactly that -- so can I make a "dismissal" request at trial? How (any paperwork/timelimits involved)? And at what point in the trial (eg. after arraignment, like your site mentions for a stay)? My trial is a week and a half away!

Having been a young male driver, I agree that I took unnecessary risks and that, as a whole, the group probably has more accidents than other demographics. BUT, why start with the assumption that all young drivers are bad? Why not start by charging normal rates -- then raise rates according to the driver's record?

In total, it was requested 5 weeks before the trial date (3 weeks ago + 2 weeks until the trial). They only gave 8 weeks between the mailing date of the trial notice and the trial date, so by the time I received it and wrote the disclosure letter, there were only 5 weeks left.

In any case, can I ask for a stay at the trial? or does it have to be an adjournment?