“Red Light Camera Offence Ticket”

I think I may get a red light camera ticket. Few months back I changed my address and I got a new license with updated address. Does it change my vehicle registration information also? I am asking it becuase if my vehicle registration information is not updated with the new address, I may not get the ticket in my current address.

Second question is, if I go to court for this ticket, will it be a problem for my driver's record or insurance ? Because in the court I have to admit that I was driving the vehicle.

Owner

205.24 (1) An owner of a motor vehicle convicted, as an owner, of an offence under subsection 144 ( 18 ) on the basis of evidence obtained through the use of a red light camera system is not liable to,

(a) a drivers licence suspension under section 46 as a result of default in payment of a fine resulting from that conviction

*******************************************

you just can not renew your plates until the fine is paid.

You should go to the MTO and confirm what address your vehicle is registered at (you only have 6 days once moved to change the info)

So i've been reading through this thread and trying to mount my defence for my court date. I may have found defense on a technicality. If you look at the following link,

near the bottom under number 4, Service of Offense Notice.. its states

4. (1) An offence notice issued in a proceeding based on evidence obtained through the use of a red light camera system may be served by sending the offence notice by regular prepaid mail to the person charged within 23 days after the occurrence of the alleged offence. O. Reg. 277/99, s. 4 (1).

So i looked at my ticket and the date of offense was September 3rd 2009, but the officer certified the ticket and signed on September 29th, 26 days after the offense. Since he took longer than the allowable 23 days to serve the notice is my ticket invalid?

So i looked at my ticket and the date of offense was September 3rd 2009, but the officer certified the ticket and signed on September 29th, 26 days after the offense. Since he took longer than the allowable 23 days to serve the notice is my ticket invalid?

While I can't speak from any courtroom experience with this particular defence, I noticed that there is a contradiction between this section in the regulation and Section 3 (3) of the POA:

Service

(3) The offence notice or summons shall be served personally upon the person charged within thirty days after the alleged offence occurred. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 3 (1-3).

Since form 5.0/5.1 is an offence notice, it too falls under this section and based on the readings I have done, I found that the majority of legal scholars are in agreement that when there is a contradiction between an act and a regulation, the act takes precedence. Hence, they have 30 days to deliver rather then 23.

However, I may be wrong. Would be a good idea to obtain disclosure and see if you can develop any further defences prior to trial. Or perhaps someone who has actual experience can comment.

Red light camera tickets are traffic tickets that are issued as a result of a traffic camera being placed at an intersection to photograph vehicles who enter the intersection after the traffic signal has turned red.

Upon being photographed traveling through the intersection on a red traffic signal, the municipality will issue a notice to the owner of the vehicle.

The traffic ticket will have a picture of the vehicle showing the speed it was traveling, and that the traffic signal was red when the vehicle entered the intersection.

The penalty for a Red light Camera Ticket is $180.

There is no accumulation or loss of demerit points for this ticket.

No record kept with the Ministry of Transportation,

No record is kept or available to the insurance companies.

Red light camera tickets will not affect your insurance rates.

The red light camera ticket goes against the vehicle and not the driver.

If you have one of these tickets you can either pay the fine and forget about it or you can go to the court and the court will reduce the fine to about 75 dollars from 180 dollars.

My question was, would I possibly be able to get out of the ticket because they didn't follow the correct procedure for certifying the ticket

saneryin wrote:I have got similar ticket on Oct. 15. then I found this topic and read through all.

...

...

Anyway, I will do go to the court and plead, will set time this afternoon, and the date would be this Friday (Nov. 5) if possible.

I will keep updating my sequence in this topic.

how did your court date go? can you give us an update on what happened?

My date is booked at Jan. 18, 2010. 9:00am.

I will go to the court to see what outcome would be.

I asked the lady in the court, when I went there last time to fill my form, it it is possible to waive the fee. she says not so far, she did not see anyone's fee is waived.

this post is in my bookmark, I will update when i get back from the court.

ticketcombat wrote: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).

I too just had my proceedings stayed against this charge. Justice ruled that the court did not have jurisdiction in either validating the proceeding initiated through the revoked offence notice form or invalidating it. Prosecutor didnt look pleased so I wouldnt be surprised if it is appealed (or maybe not, might make it worse for the crown if the appeal fails).

Im assuming at some point the Justice will have to write up their reasoning for the decision. How would one go about obtaining a copy of the decision (if it is not published on Canlii)? I would like to reread the judgment but dont necessarily want to go and obtain a (overpriced) transcript (the Justice was the only one who spoke this time around). Any ideas? Im assuming that Ill need to wait for the 15 days to first pass and see whether I receive a notice of appeal.

Incidentally, I noticed that some of the posts from a few people have been deleted. Now the sequence of responses do not make sense anymore. I thought you couldn't delete a post after a certain amount of time.

amcamx wrote:I too just had my proceedings stayed against this charge. Justice ruled that the court did not have jurisdiction in either validating the proceeding initiated through the revoked offence notice form or invalidating it.

NICE!

amcamx wrote:I thought you couldn't delete a post after a certain amount of time.

You can delete your posts at any time.

Hello, thanks to everyone who previously posts within this forum. With your help my case was also dismissed by the prosecution last week. A savings of $180 which I can better use on Christmas gifts! Just thought I would share with you what happened and hopefully educate some on the process.

When you go to trial, initially you line up and meet with the prosecutor who would like to determine how you plan to plead. It is at this point that the prosecutor is willing to accept a guilty plead and offer a reduced fine (most people were offered $75; others $50 if you make a hardship case).

When I was asked by the prosecutor how I would like to plead I suggested neither as Id like to ‘quash the charges. She said on what grounds. I said "I would like to enter a motion to "Quash the charges" on the grounds that the charge is insufficient because the specific offence notice issued to me cannot be found under any of the specific regulation 950 in effect today. Therefore the court does not have jurisdiction to either validate/invalidate a revoked offence notice. As a result, I enter a motion to ‘quash the charges" (thanks to a previous post)

The prosecutor then explained that the court does not have the legal jurisdiction to ‘quash the charges simply because the form has been revoked as the certificate (???) is valid. I then just responded ‘OK. (Sometimes it is better just not to say anything). She then asked me to have a seat. I then questioned if I made the right decision. I could have just asked for and accepted a guilty plead and paid a $75 fine instead of the full $180.

Anyway when the judge entered the room, the prosecutor tries to first clear out the court room by calling forward those who plead guilty. The court had about 50 people present. I was then the last person left in the courtroom. When it was my turn to come forward, I was surprised that the prosecutor instead asked the judge for a 5 minute recess. I thought the prosecutor was going to come over and asked me to plead guilty. Instead the prosecutor passed me by and left the courtroom. Just me and the legal secretary in a very quiet court room for a few minutes. I was starting to get nervous.

When the court was then brought back into order, the prosecutor explained to the judge that the form issued to me was revoked 6 months ago and Mississauga continues to issue the old form. (indicated in a previous post) Prosecutor then explained that although the form has been revoked, the certificate (??) is still valid. She explained that the defendant only received the form, not the certificate. She consulted with her colleagues and learned that there have been several cases in this court house where the charges were dropped as a result of a revoked form. She then indicated that she would like to dismiss the charges against me. I was then free to go. $180 savings!

Note: I should point out that I have been reminded of the need to make every attempt to stop at red lights. For me, the lesson had been reinforced so the intent of the court (public safety) had been well served without having to pay a $180 fine.

Another happy customer! Congrats on the win!

witteebanter wrote:The prosecutor then explained that the court does not have the legal jurisdiction to ‘quash the charges simply because the form has been revoked as the certificate (???) is valid.

In these proceedings, the court receives a certificate of offence while the defendant receives an offence notice form. They can be very different from each other (other then providing the basics). Regulation 950 has both the certificate and offence notice form (if you really want to see the difference, you can view it here (it is form 2): http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/i ... s&context= )

Why they are different is beyond me but hey, worked in our favour!!!

Nicely done.

witteebanter wrote:Anyway when the judge entered the room, the prosecutor tries to first clear out the court room by calling forward those who plead guilty. The court had about 50 people present. I was then the last person left in the courtroom. When it was my turn to come forward, I was surprised that the prosecutor instead asked the judge for a 5 minute recess. .

I have always seen the prosecutor follow the same order

- paralegals

- guilty pleas

- adjournment requests

- discrepancies

- trials

amcamx wrote:

ticketcombat wrote: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).

I too just had my proceedings stayed against this charge. Justice ruled that the court did not have jurisdiction in either validating the proceeding initiated through the revoked offence notice form or invalidating it. Prosecutor didnt look pleased so I wouldnt be surprised if it is appealed (or maybe not, might make it worse for the crown if the appeal fails).

Can somebody explain, just exactly what I have to do to make this arguement?