“Help: Stunt Driving (117 Km/hr In A 40) + Speeding Sec.128”

For charges like this, the crown will not offer a plea-deal with the OP; they will proceed straight to trial and request for maximum fines, suspension and sentences. Crown will make an example out of you; OP needs some form of representation to avoid a trial or minimize the damage at sentencing.

+77kph under S172 Stunt Driving

$2,000 to $10,000 fine

6 months incarceration

1st conviction: up to 2 years DL suspension

+77kph under S128 Speeding

Conviction Fine: $9.75/kph = $750.75

Victim Surcharge = $125

Court Fee = $5

Total Fine: $880.75

1st conviction: up to 30 day DL suspension

Also just because OP was charged with S128 & S172, does not mean that after the trial... OP will be found guilty of S128. The crown has evidence for a S172 conviction, and will get it. We have several decisions where this has been upheld.

Does stunt driving require the same proof as speeding? Meaning does crown have to prove the speed using say radar or pacing? Or is it more based on the opinion testimony of officer that they were just driving way faster than everybody else?

jsherk wrote:Does stunt driving require the same proof as speeding? Meaning does crown have to prove the speed using say radar or pacing? Or is it more based on the opinion testimony of officer that they were just driving way faster than everybody else?

Good question, I love to hear how the officers on this forum will answer this...

For charges like this, the crown will not offer a plea-deal with the OP; they will proceed straight to trial and request for maximum fines, suspension and sentences. Crown will make an example out of you; OP needs some form of representation to avoid a trial or minimize the damage at sentencing.

+77kph under S172 Stunt Driving

$2,000 to $10,000 fine

6 months incarceration

1st conviction: up to 2 years DL suspension

+77kph under S128 Speeding

Conviction Fine: $9.75/kph = $750.75

Victim Surcharge = $125

Court Fee = $5

Total Fine: $880.75

1st conviction: up to 30 day DL suspension

Yikes, talk about a HUGE mistake, sounds like this kind of bad judgement is not something you can simply say "I'm sorry, it was a momentary lapse of judgement"

First of all: what does OP stand for, exactly...I am aware of who the OP is in this matter, just not sure what that actually stands for...

Yes, the crown must prove the speeding over by 50Km/H or more, this is done with a speed measuring device being radar or laser, I reccon on a good day it could be done by a pace too...the other form of stunting is by the officers observations: doing burnouts, driving with people in the trunk, weaving in and out of traffic at a rate of speed higher than...

There is no way this person will be convicted on both...There is no way this person is going to jail for 6 months, not even a day...a hefty fine for sure along with a suspension, that's it...Unless this young person as a very horrible record...

You can't be convicted of both. It's the same when an impaired and a charge of over 80 are laid. If the Crown gets a conviction on one of them, they will withdraw the other. Which one they get a conviction on depends on the evidence. They may even have evidence for both.

Also keep in mind that the offence of speeding is an absolute liability offence while any of the stunt offences (including speeding 50 km/h or more) are strict liability.

R. v Raham

I would strongly recommend that the OP (original poster) get legal council.

And I disagree with screeech. Jail time is a possibility with a speed like that. Depending on the circumstances and evidence. Regardless of your driving record.

With no real aggravating factors, other than the speed, with a clean record, and on a guilty plea, there is an extremely low chance of any jail time...I really hope the OP keeps us informed on this...

so really, if "everyone" who had a ticket , challenged it, the system would fall flat on its face

Observer135 wrote:jsherk is right, they do not "have to" offer you any kind of deal, but they always do, the reason is, they do not want to deal with the possibility of you getting off on a technicality and they prefer a guaranteed win over a "most likely" win scenario.

Once you go to court, anything can happen, even best officer testimonies at times are brought into question, especially when the defendant is not rattled and he/she does not self incriminate.

Not to mention, going through the entire process of swearing in the officer and the rest of the process/procedure is time consuming and it slows down the courts, this puts a larger load on them, which it enable more people down the road to file for 11b motions.

Combination of all these factors is what makes them offer you deals, now, depending on the prosecutor and the charge, he/she might want to drop one for the other or offer reduced charge on both. Given your situation one is dependent on the other, most likely he/she will drop one for the other.

Just an FYI, the fact that you won't be driving for next few years will not help your insurance, because once there is laps in your coverage, your rate will go up to a novice driver rate and all your driving experience is out the window.

Not only the "system". Quite a few ther things as well. Most employers won't pay you while you're at court fighting a ticket.

OP = original post or poster

Yes, OP will only be convicted of one charge; crown will be seeking a guilty conviction on S172 and not S128.

jsherk wrote:Does stunt driving require the same proof as speeding? Meaning does crown have to prove the speed using say radar or pacing? Or is it more based on the opinion testimony of officer that they were just driving way faster than everybody else?

This is 164 in a 80 zone, defendant was found not-guilty using a "necessity" defence: Ontario v. Kallish [2011] O.J. No. 707

From what the OP described, she was going for a joyride? rather than life was in danger.

bobajob wrote:so really, if "everyone" who had a ticket , challenged it, the system would fall flat on its face

Observer135 wrote:jsherk is right, they do not "have to" offer you any kind of deal, but they always do, the reason is, they do not want to deal with the possibility of you getting off on a technicality and they prefer a guaranteed win over a "most likely" win scenario.

Once you go to court, anything can happen, even best officer testimonies at times are brought into question, especially when the defendant is not rattled and he/she does not self incriminate.

Not to mention, going through the entire process of swearing in the officer and the rest of the process/procedure is time consuming and it slows down the courts, this puts a larger load on them, which it enable more people down the road to file for 11b motions.

Combination of all these factors is what makes them offer you deals, now, depending on the prosecutor and the charge, he/she might want to drop one for the other or offer reduced charge on both. Given your situation one is dependent on the other, most likely he/she will drop one for the other.

Just an FYI, the fact that you won't be driving for next few years will not help your insurance, because once there is laps in your coverage, your rate will go up to a novice driver rate and all your driving experience is out the window.

You are correct. The system that is designed to ensure people follow the rules of the road as determined by our elected representatives, that help ensure that if you are hit by a driver that they will have insurance, that drivers don't speed or run red lights or anything else deemed to be unacceptable by our elected government. Yes I do think there are some really stupid chicken-*EDIT* tickets given out by police officers but without traffic enforcement (and the court system to back it up) our roads would be death traps. When a 'normal' person gets a ticket it is a real bummer but remember that we also get some really dangerous people off the roads through simple traffic enforcement.