“Section 136 (1)(a) Disobey Stop Sign”

Is there any defence I can use for this case ?

You can use a due dilligence defence, IF it applies on the facts. However the fact that you weren't driving according to weather/road conditions (as you said in a previous post) does not make out a due dilligence defence, in fact that's the complete opposite. Due dilligence would be I WAS driving according to weather/road conditions.

The officer comments on environment canada's weather forcast about freezing rain. But he also says the roads were clear. Can I use a due diligence defence that I slowed down but could not stop due to the weather condition and just continued through.

Is there any other defence I can use or is this the only one.

Can you please help advise me.

There's no magical explanation that you can use in Court to simply be found not guilty. Radar Identified gave you a few possible scenarios that can explain the offence, but it sounds like by your admission you just simply failed to stop. There is no point trying to perjure yourself on the stand by making up a defence, nor will anyone on this forum assist you in doing so. If the weather truly was an issue, you can try explaining that to the Courts, but you're expected to adjust your driving for the conditions. A last resort option is to simply have the trial and see if the Crown can prove their case, but based on disclosure it sounds like they certainly can.

One thing I've noticed is that you seem to very focused on the demerit points. Are you aware that insurance companies look at the offence, not demerit points? If you have a clean driving record for over 16 years, most insurance companies will overlook a minor offence with no rate increase, regardless of points.

Further to that, the defence of due dilligence means you did everything reasonably possible to avoid committing the offence, which means you would have to establish that, even given the poor road/weather conditions, you did everything reasonable to moderate your driving while approaching the stop sign so that you would be able to stop. I think that no matter what you say you did to moderate your driving, the prosecutor is going to suggest that all you had to do to avoid failing to stop is go slower than you were going approaching the sign. This is why due dilligence is not very easy to prove, because it's tough to establish that you did EVERYTHING REASONABLE to avoid committing the offence.

Also, as you can see, whether the defence will succeed is very fact specific, that is why no one here can give you any firm answers about whether it will work.

Thanks for the advise. If proven guilty I will accept the charges, but I want to try to prepare a good case.

A friend of mine received a speeding ticket a while back. The officer was parked in a private property. He brought this to the prosecutors attention, and it was found the officer did not have a permit or permission to park there. So he could not be charged.

I was wondering if I could use a similar defense? as the officer was parked in a small commercial/shopping plaza.

I think there's more to your friends story than you were told, because that's just wrong. Police do NOT need permission to park on private property to conduct traffic enforcement for tickets to be valid. I'm sure the officers on here will agree with this.

Simon Borys wrote: I'm sure the officers on here will agree with this.

100%. Not at all relevant to the charge, and your friend would not have had the ticket dropped for that reason. You can't be stopped for speeding ON private property under the HTA, but a police officer can setup on private property to catch people on the highway. Think about it, does the fact he observed you from a parking lot versus the road change any of the facts of the offence? Nope.

If a police officer is setup on private property and the owner tells him to leave, he has to comply with the request, but it does not invalidate any enforcement.

Thank you, that makes very good sense.

The other thing is how does the officer know I didnt stop. From my opinion I slowed down to a stop but didnt wait for 3 seconds or more. I continued on after a second.

Can I use this as an argument

rajasam78 wrote:Thank you, that makes very good sense.

The other thing is how does the officer know I didnt stop. From my opinion I slowed down to a stop but didnt wait for 3 seconds or more. I continued on after a second.

Can I use this as an argument

From what you've posted the officer isn't arguing how long you stopped for, simply that you didn't stop. But you are correct in that there is no set period of time you need to stop for. It can be for one second or one minute, although the latter will probably result in some angry drivers behind you.

rajasam78 wrote:The officer comments on environment canada's weather forcast about freezing rain. But he also says the roads were clear. Can I use a due diligence defence that I slowed down but could not stop due to the weather condition and just continued through.

As Simon Borys indicated, due diligence is where you take reasonable precautions to prevent the offence. According to what you said earlier, you did NOT adjust your driving for the conditions.

I read the officer's notes. He did not say the roads were clear. He said they were clear and wet, but acknowledged that there was a forecast of freezing rain. Just because the public weather forecast indicates that there is the possibility of freezing rain does not mean that the road will ice over, or even that those conditions were occurring at the time your offence occurred. I did a historical weather check and according to the observed weather at the Kitchener-Waterloo Airport, there was a brief period of freezing rain starting around 6AM that had changed over to rain by 7 AM local time that day, and continued to warm up (ie no more freezing rain). The officer observed your vehicle and did not note any sliding or skidding; he simply said you failed to stop. If you try the weather angle, unless you get a very sympathetic and pro-defendant JP, it will not work.

I have a hard time believing your friend's claim. The Prosecutor would have had to either be poorly trained, and/or just plain mistaken, to drop a ticket for that reason. Police can set up on private property if they wish. The owner can tell them to leave, and typically they will not set up on a residential property without seeking permission first, but either way it doesn't matter. I've seen the "police were on private property" approach tried in court about a half-dozen times and it failed 100% of the time. I would not recommend trying it as a defence if it goes to trial.

As far as stopping goes, the only requirement is for your vehicle to fully stop. There is no requirement to stop for three seconds; this is taught as a technique by some driving schools. The only legal requirement is for the vehicle to fully cease forward motion. If you are absolutely 100% certain that you did, in fact, stop, you can testify to that. If you are not 100% certain, then do not testify. Given the fact that you said you could not stop in earlier posts, I would also not recommend testifying that you stopped, because this would be perjury.

If the officer shows up, I would suggest that you discuss your clean driving record with the Prosecutor, and seek to plea-bargain to a lesser offence. Since you were polite and cooperative with the officer during the traffic stop, I think there is a reasonable possibility that they will reduce the charge.

"I would suggest that you discuss your clean driving record with the Prosecutor, and seek to plea-bargain to a lesser offence. Since you were polite and cooperative with the officer during the traffic stop, I think there is a reasonable possibility that they will reduce the charge"

Can such an offence under this section be reduced ?

I can reduce the number of points deducted. If so how best to present this to the prosecutor. Should I just come out flat and ask lets plea bargain. I have never been in this situation, any advise or help will be appreciated.

I have my trial tomorrow morning

rajasam78 wrote:I can reduce the number of points deducted. If so how best to present this to the prosecutor.

Points are non-negotiable. They can't be reduced.

First Attendance done.

Plea bargain to a lesser offence of "did not obey sign"

2 points instead of 3

Fine amount decreased

Did I do well ??? or could i have done better ??

Given the circumstances, I think you did fine. You got a reduced fine and lower demerit points. Whether your insurance will be affected or not remains to be seen, but in some cases, they'll forgive one ticket per three-year period for things like:

- Speeding 15 km/h or less over the limit

- Disobey sign (what you pled guilty to)

- Failure to lower high-beams

- Green Light - Fail to Proceed as Directed

Etc.

They usually won't forgive a ticket for Disobey Stop Sign, even if it is your first offence.