“Red Light Camera Offence Ticket”

Frozenover wrote:

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?

You need to have a ticket that is written on an old form.

racer wrote:You need to have a ticket that is written on an old form.

I had a ticket written on the old form, but was concerned with my ability to present this arguement of the JP or Crown started to press me on the details of the various act and how it worked. Hence I was hoping somebody could lay out the arguement in detail.

It doesn't matter now, I won!!!

Frozenover wrote:

racer wrote:You need to have a ticket that is written on an old form.

I had a ticket written on the old form, but was concerned with my ability to present this arguement of the JP or Crown started to press me on the details of the various act and how it worked. Hence I was hoping somebody could lay out the arguement in detail.

It doesn't matter now, I won!!!

thats good news! would you care to elaborate how you won the case? I have just been thrown into the world of these red light traffic cameras as i allegedly made a right hand turn without stopping. My fine is $325!!! I cant believe how high these tickets are! anyway I figure why not try and fight it seeing as though I DO have the old version of the notice. I just received it Jan. 26 2010 and the offence apparently took place Jan. 14 2010. I also noticed there is nothing in the picture that confirms if it was at the interesction they were saying it was at. meaning there are no signs of anything in the picture. I guess these are the 2 legs i have to stand on. Can someone please explain what it is i would need to say and do to have this thing thrown out? I will pay if I have to but not without a fight!! any help is appreciated. I suppose i have 8 months and 2 weeks to learn the law. This thread is awesome though! fight the power!!!

dpreid1981 wrote:thats good news! would you care to elaborate how you won the case?

Thanks.

I won because I was prepared and had multiple lines of defense. I didnt in fact get to make the argument in regards to the use of an old Offense Notice. However, for your benefit here is my understanding of how to make the argument.

First off, confirm that you do have an old notice. Personally Im surprised that they would still be using them more than a year later. Does your 2nd Option read "plead guilty with an explanation"? If so you are good.

When you arrive at court, speak to the crown, and consider the deal he offers, it may be worth it not to have to spend a day in "jail" (court) waiting for your turn. If you dont want to take the deal, and he asks what you want to do tell him you would like to speak to the justice, then ask if your case could be dealt with sooner.

When its finally your turn, the crown will present the charge to the court, and the justice will ask you how you plead. DO NOT make a plea or you may screw yourself. Your response should be:

"Your worship I make a motion to Quash this charge on the grounds that the document sent to me entitled "Offence Notice" was not in fact an "Offence Notice" as per regulation 950 (13.1) at the time it was issued. Therefore the requirements of Reg 950 section 3(2) have not been met and this proceeding cannot commence."

Now the crown will probably make some argument that as per section 90(1), the justice can amend the issued notice to deal with any irregularities.

Your response to that needs to be: "the proceeding must be commenced before section 90(1) can take effect, since the requirements of section (3)(2) has not been met the proceedings cannot commence thus section 90(1) is not in effect".

Makes your head want to spin doesnt it? But hopefully it clarifies the argument presented in this thread.

Bottom line, get a copy of the relevant sections, read them and understand them and how they make this argument work.

Good Luck! Let us know how it works out for you!

Frozenover wrote:

dpreid1981 wrote:thats good news! would you care to elaborate how you won the case?

Thanks.

I won because I was prepared and had multiple lines of defense. I didnt in fact get to make the argument in regards to the use of an old Offense Notice. However, for your benefit here is my understanding of how to make the argument.

First off, confirm that you do have an old notice. Personally Im surprised that they would still be using them more than a year later. Does your 2nd Option read "plead guilty with an explanation"? If so you are good.

When you arrive at court, speak to the crown, and consider the deal he offers, it may be worth it not to have to spend a day in "jail" (court) waiting for your turn. If you dont want to take the deal, and he asks what you want to do tell him you would like to speak to the justice, then ask if your case could be dealt with sooner.

When its finally your turn, the crown will present the charge to the court, and the justice will ask you how you plead. DO NOT make a plea or you may screw yourself. Your response should be:

"Your worship I make a motion to Quash this charge on the grounds that the document sent to me entitled "Offence Notice" was not in fact an "Offence Notice" as per regulation 950 (13.1) at the time it was issued. Therefore the requirements of Reg 950 section 3(2) have not been met and this proceeding cannot commence."

Now the crown will probably make some argument that as per section 90(1), the justice can amend the issued notice to deal with any irregularities.

Your response to that needs to be: "the proceeding must be commenced before section 90(1) can take effect, since the requirements of section (3)(2) has not been met the proceedings cannot commence thus section 90(1) is not in effect".

Makes your head want to spin doesnt it? But hopefully it clarifies the argument presented in this thread.

Bottom line, get a copy of the relevant sections, read them and understand them and how they make this argument work.

Good Luck! Let us know how it works out for you!

aww man you're the best! thanks a lot i really appreciate that! i guess I have some time to study up but i pretty much have an understanding of the regulation 950 so I will read all of the relevant sections and prepare. then if it is still underway I guess I'm screwed but this should be fun! can anyone let me know if i should bring my ticket to the court? i have heard that if i do i could be incriminating myself if they didnt bring my photos. i assume i would need my copy to prove its the incorrect offence notice. and also, i'd imagine i'll be nervous so is it ok to read this stuff off paper? i plan on making notes and bringing copies of the sections to quote.

It seems to be the new form so that idea won't work.

Hi shrek75,

I just got a red light ticket as well and have been doing some research. I believe the form you were sent has been revoked:

This is my interpretation of what happened:

1) The Good Government Act, 2011 gives the Attorney General the right to make regulations (see subsection 7(4) of the Good Government Act). It came into effect on March 30, 2011.

2) The above two cited regulations 106/11 and 108/11 came into effect on March 31, 2011 (the date they were filed), as per their relevant subsections.

a) Ontario Regulation 106/11, made by the Attorney General, revokes several sections of Regulation 950 as well as forms 1 to 9 (including the one you received).

b) Ontario Regulation 108/11 replaces some of the sections that were revoked from Regulation 950.

3) The form you should have received can be found here:

Although it's almost identical, it's not the same one.

I think you could argue what amcamx said in a previous post in this thread:

If municipalities are governed by the POA to utilize the forms issued under Regulation 950 (now Regulation 108/11), 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.

In fact, the city should have been referring the new regulation 108/11 when issuing an offence notice, and they probably didn't use the new certificate of offence. I think I would essentially do what Frozenover said (modifications are in red):

1) On the notice, I think option "1 - Trial Option" is what I would go for.

2) When you arrive at court, speak to the crown, and consider the deal he offers, it may be worth it not to have to spend a day in "jail" (court) waiting for your turn. If you dont want to take the deal, and he asks what you want to do tell him you would like to speak to the justice, then ask if your case could be dealt with sooner.

3) When its finally your turn, the crown will present the charge to the court, and the justice will ask you how you plead. DO NOT make a plea or you may screw yourself. Your response should be:

"Your worship I make a motion to Quash this charge on the grounds that the document sent to me entitled "Offence Notice" was not in fact an "Offence Notice" as per subsection 3(4) of Ontario Regulation 108/11 at the time it was issued. Therefore the requirements of section 13 of the Provincial Offences Act have not been met and this proceeding cannot commence."

4) Now the crown will probably make some argument that as per subsection 90(1), the justice can amend the issued notice to deal with any irregularities.

Your response to that needs to be: "The proceeding must be commenced before subsection 90(1) can take effect. Since the requirements of subsection 3(4) of Ontario Regulation 108/11 have not been met as provided by section 13 of the Provincial Offences Act, the proceedings cannot commence. Thus section 90(1) is not in effect".

Makes your head want to spin doesnt it? But hopefully it clarifies the argument presented in this thread.

Bottom line, get a copy of the relevant sections, read them and understand them and how they make this argument work.

Good Luck! Let us know how it works out for you!

In addition, I don't think the prosecution will be able to issue a new offence notice since the delay (23 or 30 days as discussed in this thread) will have expired at that point in time.

Any thoughts?

Thanks mojojojo. Seems very complicated .. I am not sure I can handle this . Maybe I should just choose to negotiate with prosecutor. Anyone here had experience with my exact form and disputing it?

by the way just curious but does pleading or making excuses work e.g.

- You had a cold and were sneezing and had passed the line and hence decided it was safer to move thru the red

- Or babies in car and could not break. red light was blocked by bus ahead etc.

- I have a loan and can't pay this amount .. kindly reduce it.

- Or is it better to claim you don't remember who was driving the car at that time .. just to be safe so it does not go onto your record?

- if you go to court and you are fined .. does that go into your record?

- If I go to court (trial option 1) could be it worse where I pay the entire fine instead of picking option 3 where you can negotiate with prosecutor.

In answer to "Blanket's" question of a few weeks ago: "I too am in Ottawa. As your court date has passed ...... please enlighten us all. How did it go for you? Did you succeed? If so, how did you manage to do so?"; The charge was dismissed. The Justice of the Peace asked me how I plead and I said "not guilty Your Worship." She asked the prosecutor for the evidence (ie. the photo) but they did not have it. As there was no evidence against me the JP said I was free to leave the court room with no conviction. Therefore, I never had to argue about the invalid ticket. By the way, I also did some research about the recommended duration of the amber signal. The intersection I went through had the length set to the minimum (3.7 sec) but in my case there was also a decline of about a 5% grade approaching this intersection.

Good luck

This post is very informative. I suspect that the intersection where I received a red light camera ticket also has a grade (decline). How do I find out what the grade is on Ottawa city streets?

Thanks for your help.

I would like to clarify one thing:

If you chose option (3) and at the trial date you accept the prosecutor's offer by pleading guilty with a lesser fine, are you sure they won't send this conviction to MTO?

In other words, won't insurance companies know about this?

Ouch!

I just got a ticket from one of those red light cameras for $325.00!

Can this be right?

What can I do, this is a lot of money!

I already checked if its an "old versioin" according to the messages in this thread. Mine looks like the new version.

What do do?

Here's a copy of what I got in the mail.

What to do? !!!!

Dammit, I was just getting ready to go to court and I realized this whole argument fails beacuse the section of the Good Government Act 2011 I was relying on comes into effect on January 3, 2012.

Ergh.... I missed the clause in the GGA 2011 that said:

COMMENCEMENT

11. (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Schedulecomes into force on the day the Good Government Act,2011 receives Royal Assent.

Same

Not so good...

mojojojo wrote:Hi shrek75,

I just got a red light ticket as well and have been doing some research. I believe the form you were sent has been revoked:

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/source ... 1106_e.htm http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/source ... 1108_e.htm

This is my interpretation of what happened:

1) The Good Government Act, 2011 gives the Attorney General the right to make regulations (see subsection 7(4) of the Good Government Act). It came into effect on March 30, 2011.

2) The above two cited regulations 106/11 and 108/11 came into effect on March 31, 2011 (the date they were filed), as per their relevant subsections.

a) Ontario Regulation 106/11, made by the Attorney General, revokes several sections of Regulation 950 as well as forms 1 to 9 (including the one you received).

b) Ontario Regulation 108/11 replaces some of the sections that were revoked from Regulation 950.

3) The form you should have received can be found here:

http://www.ontariocourtforms.on.ca/engl ... -act-forms

Although it's almost identical, it's not the same one.

I think you could argue what amcamx said in a previous post in this thread:

If municipalities are governed by the POA to utilize the forms issued under Regulation 950 (now Regulation 108/11), 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.

In fact, the city should have been referring the new regulation 108/11 when issuing an offence notice, and they probably didn't use the new certificate of offence. I think I would essentially do what Frozenover said (modifications are in red):

1) On the notice, I think option "1 - Trial Option" is what I would go for.

2) When you arrive at court, speak to the crown, and consider the deal he offers, it may be worth it not to have to spend a day in "jail" (court) waiting for your turn. If you dont want to take the deal, and he asks what you want to do tell him you would like to speak to the justice, then ask if your case could be dealt with sooner.

3) When its finally your turn, the crown will present the charge to the court, and the justice will ask you how you plead. DO NOT make a plea or you may screw yourself. Your response should be:

"Your worship I make a motion to Quash this charge on the grounds that the document sent to me entitled "Offence Notice" was not in fact an "Offence Notice" as per subsection 3(4) of Ontario Regulation 108/11 at the time it was issued. Therefore the requirements of section 13 of the Provincial Offences Act have not been met and this proceeding cannot commence."

4) Now the crown will probably make some argument that as per subsection 90(1), the justice can amend the issued notice to deal with any irregularities.

Your response to that needs to be: "The proceeding must be commenced before subsection 90(1) can take effect. Since the requirements of subsection 3(4) of Ontario Regulation 108/11 have not been met as provided by section 13 of the Provincial Offences Act, the proceedings cannot commence. Thus section 90(1) is not in effect".

Makes your head want to spin doesnt it? But hopefully it clarifies the argument presented in this thread.

Bottom line, get a copy of the relevant sections, read them and understand them and how they make this argument work.

Good Luck! Let us know how it works out for you!

In addition, I don't think the prosecution will be able to issue a new offence notice since the delay (23 or 30 days as discussed in this thread) will have expired at that point in time.

Any thoughts?

mojojojo wrote:Dammit, I was just getting ready to go to court and I realized this whole argument fails beacuse the section of the Good Government Act 2011 I was relying on comes into effect on January 3, 2012.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/tables ... tprocs.htm

Ergh.... I missed the clause in the GGA 2011 that said:

COMMENCEMENT

11. (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Schedulecomes into force on the day the Good Government Act,2011 receives Royal Assent.

Same

(2) Subsections 1 (1), (3) and (7), sections 3 and 4,subsections 5 (1) and (3) to (6), 6 (1), (2) and (4) to (40)and 7 (1) to (9) and sections 9 and 10 come into forceon a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieuten-ant Governor.

Not so good...

Nice, I went to court this afternoon, and all the charges agaisnt everyone except one person in the room were dropped due to a technical error. That one person was not me and I don't know what the error was all about but it's on the record and I don't have to pay that crazy fine!

Good luck to all, keep on fighting!

Hi there,

Darn it!! I got an offence today. I know that this is gotta be a mistake. Just take a look at the 2nd picture. They only have a picture of me stop behind the line (1 st picture). 2nd picture doesn't even have my car in it. How can they say I crossed the light and went into intersection when the light was red? Don't they need to have a picture of my car crossed the line and went into the intersection???

The form is 5.1. Is this the old form? Shouldn't it be form 5? Someone here said that the Good Government Act 2009 will take effect in January 3, 2012. It just took in effect. The date of my violation in December 24, 2011.

Here are the pictures:

Please help? I just had a newborn and $325 and go to a lot of diapers and formula. I know this is a mistake because I remember exactly that day I went to Canadian Tire and on that particular intersection I turned right on the traffic light to reach Canadian Tire. You can see that my brake lights and turning light is on. Let's say if they argue that the reason of the camera didn't capture my car on the 2nd picture is because of my speed. My speed was registered at 30km/h! The notice shows that I approached the the intersection at which time the signal had displayed red for 001.5 seconds and that the vehicle proceeded through the intersection when the light had been red for 003.3 seconds. Does it make sense?

Someone here also mentioned that the photo has to show street names, and as you can see you do not see street names. But the most important thing is they don't have prove of me crossing the red light (no evidence of crossing on the 2nd picture).