“Self Defence For First Offense Of Sec. 53.1”

Greetings all,

I'm a brand new member and I just want to say, I love the concept of this forum. We need more places like these to gather together and discuss these things. The HTA governs us all every day and it wasn't until I started reading it that I realized just how easily your rights to drive can be revoked.

As stated above I'm going to have to defend myself in court against these charges. I paid off the original fine (a measly $140) recently after being aware that it was what was suspending my license and now am looking at $1000 and 6 months without a license. I took some advice off this forum and tried to plea guilty to driving without a license but the prosecutor just laughed (he actually laughed and said, "No."). When I pressed him a little more he said that kind of thing is possible, but certainly not while he was there.

The only defense it seems is to some how prove to the court I didn't know my license is suspended. It's funny though, had my license been suspended for drinking and driving or killing a family of four, I'd at least get the courtesy of registered mail. As it stands, I'm considered served because they put a letter in the mail, supposedly.

Shouldn't my word be good enough? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Should the court have to prove I didn't know?

Where do I even begin?

Thanks in advance for all your thoughts,

Joey

Welcome to the forum

You mention sec. 53.1.

It is not really much help for us to understand what happened to you.

Possibly if you described the incident we could offer ideas.

Maybe describe what happened etc.

Cheers

Viper1

Sorry about that, I'd be more than happy to provide some more detail.

Three to four years ago I was convicted of not validating my plates (which I was absolutely guilty of).

I did not appear in court and had forgotten about it entirely. That fine then caused my license to be

suspended (although I had not realized this). Two months ago I was driving a friends vehicle, which

conveniently, he had forgotten to update his plate validation. I was pulled over and not given

the fine for that, but instead informed my license had been suspended and I was given a summons

to appear in court. I have since requested disclosure and tried to make a deal with the prosecution.

I had assumed that the officer was in effect serving me then and there (which would mean

no crime would have taken place) but instead it turns out I am considered already served

according to Section 52(1)(b).

To my understanding there is basically no defense thanks to the way these sections are

worded. My only plea is under Section 52(2). So if I can prove somehow I didn't receive

the notice I wouldn't be considered served. But that seems like an awfully impossible task.

How do I prove a letter never reached my hands? And why does a law exist that forces me

to, should the burden of proof fall on the prosecution? Should they have to prove the letter

was delivered (warranting the use of registered mail).

I have no idea how to approach this and it's really unfortunate as I was just about to start working

and getting things turned around, and now some 4 year old misnomer will leave me collecting

social assistance and putting my life on hold for another 6 months.

I also figured I should ask: Has anyone looked up the case law for this offense? Or has

anyone ever sucessfully defended themselves and is willing to share what worked for them?

Thanks again for any assistance.

Joey wrote:... The HTA governs us all every day and it wasn't until I started reading it that I realized just how easily your rights to drive can be revoked.

Just wanted to point out that driving is not a right. It is a privilege.

Lol, thanks for that. Section 31 does make that clear.

Section 31 also indicates that the privilege is issued to those who are likely to drive safely, however later on in the HTA it allows that privilege to be revoked for any reason (including but not limited to wearing a pink hat on leap days).

My personal thoughts are driving should be a right, unless you put someone (including yourself) at risk. At that point your right to drive should be revoked in the same way your right to freedom would be revoked when you preform a criminal act.

The Charter protects our right to travel, and I think vehicles should be included.

Pay your ticket or show up at court. The back of the ticket fully explains what can happen.

You"right" to travel has been taken away because of your carelessness and nothing else.

No one else is to blame.

OPS