“Fail To Stop - The Stop Sign Was Not Visible From 60m”

Last October I missed a stop sign, and next week is my court date. However, the road on which the stop sigh is erected is bending, and there are trees very close to the sign, so there is no way it is visible from 60 meters as prescribed by reg 615. I took pictures the next day, and I think I have enough evidence to show that it does not comply with reg 615.

The problem is that I have not received any disclosure yet. I delivered my disclosure request at the beginning of December, got a copy date stamped. Again at the beginning of this month I delivered my second request to the prosecutor's office (Mississauga), got it date stamped, and I was told that they did not receive any response from the cop yet. My research of the issue indicates that without a disclosure they cannot prosecute. Am I correct?

Question 1: What's the best thing to do if the disclosure does not come by the court date?

Question 2: If it comes and I defend myself, can I print reg 615 from the internet and use it in court?

Thanks for any advice,

Marco

Question 1: What's the best thing to do if the disclosure does not come by the court date?

Being a regular joe without legal training, simply explain to the JP that you twice filed for disclosure and didn't receive it......stay issued.

Question 2: If it comes and I defend myself, can I print reg 615 from the internet and use it in court?

I would think so, any one else????

Oh, and those Mississauga folks are reaaaaaalllllllly slow......I still have not received the transcripts for my appeal of a 2008 conviction.....can you believe that......

Reflections wrote:I would think so, any one else????

I think so, too. It's the content of the document that's important, not the document itself in this case.

Radar Identified wrote:

Reflections wrote:I would think so, any one else????

I think so, too. It's the content of the document that's important, not the document itself in this case.

The JP will have the regulation with him/her.....think all you would have to do is to refer to the regulation and section...JP will look up the book version right then and there

I'm just wondering, does this part of reg.615 allow for an exception to the 60m rule:?

47. Where the characteristics of a highway make it impracticable to place a sign or pavement markings as specified in this Regulation, the sign or pavement markings shall be placed so as to comply as nearly as practicable with those requirements. O. Reg. 699/92, s. 5.

sometimes I have seen a "stop sign ahead" sign. Its a yellow sign with a pic of a small stop sign and an arrow on the top. Does that void the 60m thing, I dont know. But if theres not one there that you should be golden.

If the "no disclosure" angle doesn't work, the issue is, can you prove that the sign is/was not visible from 60 metres? Testifying to that is not good enough, you'll need some tangible evidence.

Yes, the road is bending and there was lots of leaves and branches around the sign, I took pictures and measured distances. There was no "STOP AHEAD" sign either. If I don't get a stay I'm prepared to fight it, but based on ticketcombat site, the prosecution cannot use anything that was not disclosed to me, so I don't know how they could go ahead with the charge if they cannot use for example the bylaw as evidence.

Unless they give me the stuff right before the trial, but how would/should that be treated by the court? Should I accept it if they try to give it to me right before the trial?

If they try to give you disclosure immediately before the trial, do not accept it, and complain to the JP. That should either force a stay, or result in the JP allowing an adjournment, but charging the delay to the Crown.

As for the photographs - I think that should take care of it. If you do not get a favourable ruling at trial, it still leaves the option open for an appeal, particularly with all the evidence you have. You've got proof the sign was not compliant with O.Reg 615. If the JP doesn't see it your way, a Justice hearing the appeal should.

Radar Identified wrote:As for the photographs - I think that should take care of it. If you do not get a favourable ruling at trial, it still leaves the option open for an appeal, particularly with all the evidence you have. You've got proof the sign was not compliant with O.Reg 615. If the JP doesn't see it your way, a Justice hearing the appeal should.

However, Marco does have a good point in this section, that renders the "60m" guideline not applicable.

Marco wrote: 47. Where the characteristics of a highway make it impracticable to place a sign or pavement markings as specified in this Regulation, the sign or pavement markings shall be placed so as to comply as nearly as practicable with those requirements.

hwybear,

Can you please explain what you mean by:

"However, Marco does have a good point in this section, that renders the "60m" guideline not applicable."

Thanks

Marco wrote:hwybear,

Can you please explain what you mean by:

"However, Marco does have a good point in this section, that renders the "60m" guideline not applicable."

Thanks

You quoted the HTA which I thought you understood when you posted it

HTA OREG 615

Sec 45 - states signs should be visible for 60m of approaching traffic

Sec 47 - states that sec 45 is not applicable if the charecteristics of the hwy make it impracticable to install the sign to be visible within 60m.

(ie A sharp curve in a hwy coming to an intersection comes to mind....approaching you could be parallel to the face of the sign, then curve the last couple car length(s) or so to view the sign straight on and the stop sign would not be visible for 60m)

How sharp was the bend? Plus, leaves/vegetation all around it makes a pretty good case for obstruction of the sign (depending on how thick the foliage was)...

It's difficult to describe how sharp the bend was, I would say maybe 30 degrees. The bend alone probably would not be enough, but there was still lots of leaves on the trees in all colours of the fall, they were around the sign, so it blended with them nicely. There was poor lighting on the other side of the street only, it was almost 7 pm on a cloudy October evening, pretty much night like conditions. No "Stop Ahead" sign. According to my measurements the sign was visible from 30, maybe 35 meters. The cop said to me that they had many complaints at this stop sign, I guess the conditions explain the complaints. I'm really wondering if the cop chose that place to enforce on purpose, to get some tickets issued, or was it just pure negligence in terms of making sure that the sign complies with reg 615, or is simply visible to drivers from a decent distance.

IMPROPERLY started topic DELETED....continuation of incident posted here

Marco wrote:I went to the court today (Mississauga), and here is what happened:

As stated in my previous post, I did not get any disclosure up to the trial day, and hoped to get a stay. My case was left as the last one. The cop was there. The female prosecutor told me that they do not give stays on first court appearance, I insisted, but the judge (also female) told me that all they can do is give me another date. I did not like the idea of having to take another day off work, so asked for 15 minutes to prepare.

After the female cop testified, I asked her a few questions, and got her to admit that she did not know what reg 615 says about the visibility of stop signs. However, in the meantime the judge noticed that during her testimony the cop did not state the date when she caught me, only the time, and the date of her shift, I think. The judge asked to playback the cop's testimony, while I was listening, a little baffled by the development, and eventually the judge said: "If you were represented by a lawyer or legal representative, he would at this time make a non suit motion". The judge asked to play the testimony again, the prosecutor tried to make an argument that the date was kind of implied or obvious, but the judge asked me if I would like to make a non suit motion, I said "Yes, if I'm allowed to."

She said "Motion allowed, the charge is dismissed".

I think I would have won on my due diligence defense and showing that the sign was not visible from 60 m due to a bend and shrubs and trees, but it was obviously a very nice development. I was also dressed in a white shirt and a tie, and prepared as well as I could.

I hope my experience will help some people with their cases.