“Insecure Load-cmv”

I'm going to court to fight a ticket for insecure load-cmv; section 111(2)

I was driving my SUV pulling my trailer in Hamilton. Both are personal vehicles (blue lettered plates). I had several 12' 2x4's that were bound and secured under the horizontal cross bar of the tail gate. The load overhang from the back of the trailer was 47" At no time was I about to lose any part of my load.

So I get pulled over by what seemed to be some young cop with something to prove. Serveral times during my incounter he made referances to load ratings of bungee cords, ropes and tie downs.

When i got home I read section 111 and I'm thinking he's confusing me with a commercial motor vehicle as thier level of compliance is much higher for securing a load?

So my main question is: On the "notice of trial" it states "You did commit the offence of INSECURE LOAD – CMV. Contrary to the HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT section 111(2).

Am I right in assuming the "CMV" means commercial motor vehicle which should be enough to get it thrown out?

Thanks for your time.

You are correct that "cmv" means commercial motor vehicle. However, you need to see if your vehicle meets the definition before assuming it will not apply. See section 1(1) of Regulation 199/07, especially sub-section g dealing with pick-ups and their loads. If you don't meet the definition, that should be your defence.

Note: The officer may have used the wrong description but chaarged you with the proper section---111(2) applies to all vehicles with poor loads; 111(2.1) deals with poor loads on a cmv. You could therefore argue that the variance between the section cited and the description created a legitimate ambiguity over what your defence was to be and caused prejudice to you.

Go by the charge wording on the ticket, not the notice of trial. Trial notice are automated forms that clerks print out. Errors on the trial notice aren't relevant in Court, only the actual ticket itself.

Stanton is correct--you should go by the ticket; not the notice of trial. Is there a discrepancy?

I understood that the ticket you received referenced 111(2) but then uses the indication "cmv" in describing the offence. However, the proper section applicable for a "cmv" is actually 111(2.1). That small detail COULD be a great defence since its a big difference on your defence strategy. Most courts would lean your way with the proper strategy and case law presented----IF your vehicle is not a cmv----however, if it meets the definition of a cmv then your argument of prejuduce will greatly diminish. So, bottom line: Make sure you are only looking at the ticket; the notice of trial is only useful in questions of proper notice; not for the elements of an offence And, THEN you may find you have a great starting point if there is such a discrepancy and your vehicle doesn't meet the cmv definition.

Thanks for your input on this matter.

I think you both might be onto something as I don't recall any mention of CMV on the ticket itself. I surrendered that when I filed for a trial so I am not sure.

It just struck me as odd that the COP made so many mentions of ratings of ropes, tie downs etc, which is clearly 111(2.1). And I by no means meat the critiria for CMV.

Here's what really makes my blood boil. I haven't even been pulled over in 24 years let alone been ticketed for anything. And here's some young COP who almost got himself killed on his motorcycle 150m from where he pulled me over when he pulled out from the Police station and cut me off.

He did a walk around my SUV and my trailer. He checked trailer lighting and safety chains. All was good. He never once said it was his opinion that the load might come loose; he only said "I wouldn't want that coming back at me". Well.....Dah! of course not.

He asked if I had any rope, which I did in the back, so my wife and I tied it down.......which didn't do much, but it looked better. This is where I should have been given the public service message about safetly sercuring loads and sent on my way. No, $160 ticket.

I applied and went to an early resolution meeting downtown Hamilton. I took the morning off work, paid for parking to be told by the prosecutor that it was too serious of an offence to do anything about. Pay the fine or go to trial is what she said. If so, why the heck was an early resolution meeting scheduled if nothing could be done?

And now you're telling me the clerk might have made an error on the notice of trial and added a CMV to it. Is the dirty little secret just to pay your fine and save a lot of hasstle?

....that's my rant

No one stated or implied that the clerk intentionally changed your charged on the notice of trial. Rather, its generally just a result of a typo or data entry mistake. Happens quite frequently.

In any event, you MUST go with what's on the ticket. If the ticket does not mention 'cmv' then you're case is under 111(2). Don't get bogged down by the notice of trial. As Stanton mentioned and I re-stated, its the ticket that matters.

What IS on your ticket?

from what I understand if you're towing a trailer, no matter what the vehicle type, you're a commercial motor vehicle. you don't need cvor to be a cmv - it's only required for i believe 6000kg and above (yellow sticker for 4500kg and above).