“Red Light Camera Offence Ticket”

Thanks for the info, amcamx! I'm up July 10th. I will take another look at my photo to confirm if the street signs are visible.

erensto wrote:I got a ticket too and it happens to be invalid (old version)!, Interesting.

In my case was a friend who was driving my car. Is there any chance I can plead guilty (Option 2) and get a lesser fine?.

My record is clean, this is the first ticket I got and now I know the ticket is invalid.

Is it for sure that this kind of ticket is not going to affect my insurance?

Thanks.!

Red light ticket has no affect on your insurance because it cannot tell who was the driver and the fine is against you, the car owner, not your friend who drove the car.

As for the fine, i heard if you show up in court and take the plea bargain, the fine may be reduced to half (or more, not sure about the dollar amount)

I just wanted to let everyone know what happened at my trial - I approached the prosecutor individually before and I explained to him that the ticket was invalid, brought in a copy of Canlii, but he said according to Sec 90 of the POA, any problem with the ticket itself has no bearing on the finding of guilt. I persisted a little, so he told me to go speak to a paralegal that happened to be standing there... I spoke to him, and he confirmed this was true, and encouraged me to plea bargain. Well, the prosecutor offered me $60 fine instead of $180, so I took it... I looked up Sec 90 of POA when I got home and it seems that it's true. Too bad, because Peel has no reason to comply with the new forms if their old ticket is getting them convictions.

Anyways, I guess I could have made up a story about getting contractions (i'm seriously pregnant), but it didn't feel right to lie...

naomi wrote:I just wanted to let everyone know what happened at my trial - I approached the prosecutor individually before and I explained to him that the ticket was invalid, brought in a copy of Canlii, but he said according to Sec 90 of the POA, any problem with the ticket itself has no bearing on the finding of guilt. I persisted a little, so he told me to go speak to a paralegal that happened to be standing there... I spoke to him, and he confirmed this was true, and encouraged me to plea bargain. Well, the prosecutor offered me $60 fine instead of $180, so I took it... I looked up Sec 90 of POA when I got home and it seems that it's true. Too bad, because Peel has no reason to comply with the new forms if their old ticket is getting them convictions.

Anyways, I guess I could have made up a story about getting contractions (i'm seriously pregnant), but it didn't feel right to lie...

There is only pregnant and it is always serious...... ....... It is still "funny" that we the public must comply as soon as laws change, but the crown does not..... Best of luck with the new one......

Hi Naomi,

Sorry to hear that things didnt go as planned but $60 isnt a bad fine to have to pay. Plus it doesnt show up on your abstract, an added bonus.

However, I was thinking of what the prosecutor and paralegal said about section 90 and I think Lawman may be correct. Section 90 only refers to defects or irregularities in the offence notice such as spelling errors and other minor faults that do not have a serious effect on the proceedings (as in misleading the defendant (see R. v. Donovan, 2005 NBPC 1 (CanLII) — 2005-01-10)).

However, I think the question here really isnt one on misleading the defendant or other such irregularities.

Rather, Section 13 of the POA clearly states:

13. (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

(a) prescribing the form of certificates of offence, offence notices and summonses and such other forms as are considered necessary under this Part;

So I think the question becomes, on what authority does the city of Mississauga have in issuing offence notices that have not been approved by the legislature?

If municipalities are governed by the POA to utilize the forms issued under Regulation 950, then the city of Mississauga clearly overstepped its authority in issuing a form not in the regulation anymore. It has been replaced. Mississauga cannot arbitrarily issue offence forms to its likings unless provincially approved (the municipalities gain their authority from the province only; their authority is not enshrined in the constitution).

Perhaps a good retort would have been to have asked the prosecutor under what specific regulation can the offence notice issued to you be found now.

That's why I am apprehenisive about asking anyone in court any questions, especially if directed by the prosecutor/police. Frankly, they should have signs that say, "if you have any questions, then plead guilty; we will answer it then."

Incidentally, I think section 205.25 of the HTA supercedes section 13 of the POA:

Regulations, red light camera system evidence

205.25 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

(d) governing the form and content of photographs for the purposes of subsection 205.15 (2), including information that may be or must be shown or superimposed on the photographs, and prescribing a system of codes, symbols or abbreviations that may be used to convey the information;

Regardless, it may make an interesting defence and see how the prosecutor responds when the offence notice submitted cannot be found in any regulation.

I also think she could have won the case if she simply plead not guilty and when the prosecutor entered the photographs as evidence of the offence, asked the court to deem the photos as non-admissible based on the ruling in Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Yan, 2004 CanLII 32076 (ON C.A.). The location provision was a key factor in the decision by the Appeals court who ruled that unless the location is clearly visible or stated on or in the photos, the defendant cannot reasonable be expected to know the location of the offence, hence violating section 205.25 of the HTA.

But in Naomi's defence, trials can be quite stressful when competing against parties who spend their days/lives in court.

ticketcombat wrote:

Peel Region has been using the wrong ticket since the beginning of the year. Basically every red light camera ticket they issue is invalid. I am currently in court trying to get a ruling but it's been deferred to August. But that shouldn't stop you from making the same argument.

TC

I assume this doesn't just apply to red light tickets but to all tickets issued using the old form.

hi Naomi, how long did it take for the ticket to arrive in mail? i think i may have gotten one too but that's almost 3 weeks ago and i still haven't received the letter..

is there a place that i can call to ask if my car was in fact caught by the camera?

thanks,

ticketcombat wrote: I am currently in court trying to get a ruling but it's been deferred to August. But that shouldn't stop you from making the same argument.

TC

Hi TC,

Any update on this? Did you get the same ruling as Naomi's?

I'd be interested to find out since I have a court date on November and I've been issued the old ticket too.

Still waiting. A decision was due in August BUT the justice forgot his notes on his kitchen table. (I can't make this stuff up!!!) So the matter is adjourned till end of September.

But I've already noticed that they are starting to use the new forms so the loophole window is closing even if no one has managed to go through.

Wonder whether that could be taken as a potentially encouraging sign for others facing a similar predicament? I'd assume that if the courts consistently ruled against the argument (over the use of an invalid form) that the city would not bother with changing it (it is an unwieldy bureaucracy where glacial changes are expected). Otherwise, why bother to do it now, more then half a year later. Or maybe it's just coincidence.

Got the ruling today. The ticket was quashed.

As this was a first level OCJ ruling, it isn't binding so you don't necessarily need the case law to make the same argument. I have to check with the defendant tonight to see if she's OK with me plastering her name all over the internet.

Anyone can make the same argument in court. The argument is a little complicated and I'll be updating my site within the next week to explain how to make it (with or without case reference).

That is excellent news!

Congrats on your victory, I'm looking forward to reading the details.

Great job TicketCombat!

I have been following this discussion since I received my first ticket (red light camera) in over 40 years of driving. I pleaded not guilty and my court date is scheduled for October 6, 2009. My Offense Notice was issued (in Ottawa in May 2009) using the revoked Form 5. I will be arguing that it is an invalid ticket in hopes the judge will quash the ticket. I am most anxious to see the details you will provide in how to make this argument

Again great job!

Hi TC,

Just wondering if you'll be able to post some info on your sucess to get the court to quash the proceedings due to the invalidity of the offence form. In all the case law I found the courts were in general agreement that as long as the substance of the form was not defective or prejudiced the accused, the form itself could be amended (i.e. R. v. Goodine 1992 CanLII 2618 (NS C.A.)).