“Two Stop Sign Infractions But One Ticket?”

Hey guys

Do you think this would be considered a fatal error, having no offence box properly selected (not even close) He does have the section number of the Sask Highway Traffic Act in there, but no actual box is selected of the offence I committed.

Could this be, a fatal error? Could it be successfully argued that the ticket is NOT complete nor an offence properly selected?

Procedures for use of ticket 7(1) Every summary offence ticket: (a) shall be completed and signed by the peace officer who issues it; and

18(1) An offence notice ticket under this Part is required to:

(a) include:

(i) a certificate of offence; and

(ii) an offence notice; and

From the regulations, the definition of "completion of ticket."

Completion of ticket

12(1) A peace officer who issues a ticket with respect to an offence shall:

(a) in the spaces provided on the ticket, give:

(i) the section number of the Act, regulation or bylaw pursuant to which

the charge is made;

(ii) a brief description in words of the offence; and

(iii) the name of the person to be charged and other particulars indicated

on the ticket; and

(b) deliver to the defendant the summons or offence notice, as the case may

require.

(1.1) A peace officer who issues an offence notice ticket for an offence pursuant

to The Traffic Safety Act where an owner of a vehicle or a person in charge of

a vehicle is charged pursuant to section 273 of that Act shall indicate on the

ticket both the section number of the Act that describes the specific offence and

section 273 as the sections pursuant to which the charge is made.

There's a check mark by the box. I doubt you're going to get it thrown out for that.

Saskman wrote:

Zatota wrote:I watched the video a bunch of times. Your brake lights were on for about five seconds. I find it really hard to tell whether you came to a complete stop or were still rolling. The officer was sufficiently far back that it's difficult to gauge where you were relative to the intersection. That's my opinion; the JP could see it the other way.

Thanks for your opinion Zatota.

Was the infraction you're reference the first one (31 second to 45 second mark) or the second one at the intersection, just before he pulled me over?

Any suggestion on the two referenced violations for failing to stop but only one ticket? Do you know if the crown has to specify which infraction he intends to pursue?

It's going to be hard to say you stopped the first time. The only hope you have (and it's quite faint) is that you could argue you came to a complete stop between the 40- and 41-second marks when that other car blocked the officer. You could simply have been moving forward to complete your turn after you were no longer blocked. Again, that will be hard, but there may be a glimmer of benefit of the doubt.

I still say with the second one, the officer was too far back to determine whether you came to a complete stop. Yes, you're rolling when he's close enough to "nab" you, but you could have been stopped when he was too far back to have noticed.

There's only one ticket because you've been charged with the same offence (possibly two counts of it). The Crown only needs to prove that you failed to stop in either case. You will have to raise doubt on both of them to win.

Zatota wrote:

Saskman wrote:

Zatota wrote:I watched the video a bunch of times. Your brake lights were on for about five seconds. I find it really hard to tell whether you came to a complete stop or were still rolling. The officer was sufficiently far back that it's difficult to gauge where you were relative to the intersection. That's my opinion; the JP could see it the other way.

Thanks for your opinion Zatota.

Was the infraction you're reference the first one (31 second to 45 second mark) or the second one at the intersection, just before he pulled me over?

Any suggestion on the two referenced violations for failing to stop but only one ticket? Do you know if the crown has to specify which infraction he intends to pursue?

I've looked at it again, based on the comments others have posted. Here's what I think:

It's going to be hard to say you stopped the first time. The only hope you have (and it's quite faint) is that you could argue you came to a complete stop between the 40- and 41-second marks when that other car blocked the officer. You could simply have been moving forward to complete your turn after you were no longer blocked. Again, that will be hard, but there may be a glimmer of benefit of the doubt.

I still say with the second one, the officer was too far back to determine whether you came to a complete stop. Yes, you're rolling when he's close enough to "nab" you, but you could have been stopped when he was too far back to have noticed.

There's only one ticket because you've been charged with the same offence (possibly two counts of it). The Crown only needs to prove that you failed to stop in either case. You will have to raise doubt on both of them to win.

The goal at this point is to have the ticket dismissed on a fatal error, which I'm hoping is a possibility as its not legally completed- as per regulations & act. Not only did he not properly select an offense box, he spelt my first name- Christophe- rather then Christopher, two errors on one ticket. The box however, is a direct violation of the regulations prescribed. The name one is a tiny borderline one, but coupled with the other one, hoping for a TKO.

My second goal is to not have the officer show up, thereby, dismissing the ticket.

My third goal is to adjourn the matter, based on a request for additional disclosure. Focusing on the non legible "summary of offense" written on initial ticket, which when translated into mainstream English characters, would be tantamount to a new disclosure.

Then if this occurs, I will call the crown and ask for a ticket reduction to a non-demerit point offense in return for a guilty plea. Hoping they will be deterred by another trial date.

If it gets to trial, I will find a photography/video editor in town who can attest on my behalf that the video makes objects appear larger and inaccurate in the dark.

Will request that this puts me at a judicial disadvantage and that the first 45 seconds of the video be omitted.

My last goal, if all else fails, is to appeal the ticket based on the technicality potentially overlooked by a JP- who may not even be an actual lawyer or hold a law degree.

If they want a meal from the desert, I'm going to make them work for it

Does the act specifically say that the check mark has to be in the box ?

Will your video editor testify that video makes things appear to be moving when they are actually stationary ?

I admire your tenacity but I fear the only person you will be inconveniencing is yourself - the Crown is being paid to be there.

argyll wrote:Does the act specifically say that the check mark has to be in the box ?

Will your video editor testify that video makes things appear to be moving when they are actually stationary ?

I admire your tenacity but I fear the only person you will be inconveniencing is yourself - the Crown is being paid to be there.

The Saskatchewan Summary Offenses Regulations as to what defines "completion of ticket" in the Saskatchewan Summary Offenses Act states that in sector 1 (the part where the unmarked boxes are), the offense must be identified in the space provided, later to say "in form," however one wants to interpret that. To me, it's quite clear, defining a space provided, means a space provided. The Regulation's even includes a carbon copy of the actual ticket, which I have printed, highlighted and will bring to court. If I were taking a multiple choice test and answered "A" instead of "C", it would be considered invalid, even if it was obvious C was the most obvious answer and I scored 99% on all other parts of the exam- it wouldn't be allowed an amendment after the fact?

It's pretty clear that the regulations stipulate, "in the space provided." Not having the box actually checked (at all) should technically render it an incomplete ticket (as per the Act).

Of course, you, I and the judge or JP, knows, that this is a mistake and the officer missed the box. But it still is a clear cut violation of the definition of completion of ticket.

If the JP is willing to comply wholeheartedly with what is prescribed in the law, I feel she will be compelled to side with my argument, which I will prove in court.

As for the video expert, what I'd like him to specify is the grainy frames per second rate. Objects appear to be moving slower and at other times quicker, depending on where the lighting is focused. The video can be crystal clear in the day, or under stationary conditions, as you can see when my vehicle is stopped. Frames per second increase to a fluid stream, rather then pausing and going, etc. So I don't actually want him to testify about the stationary object moving, but to downplay the accuracy of objects that are lit with a dash cam incapable of properly displaying those objects. Even a higher end camera would not do a much better job unless it were stationary, with a very steady hand or a tripod. If you review the lit objects/lights especially, in that video, they appear to be enlarging and blinking, when they are NOT. Also as the officer turns, the camera turns and it can make the objects appear as if they moved. When the passerby motor vehicle at the 40/41 second mark disrupts the camera, the lights distort the cameras accuracy. Just before the passerby's motor vehicle disrupts the dashcam, you can, from a distance, notice that it appears my brake lights were activating. That intersection is a rural like one, the stop sign is considerable ways back from the highway and its sloped.

So what appears to be, is not really so. But again, I hope it doesn't get to this stage. I'm trying to downplay the evidence before its' used in court, with the crown agreeing, to only showing the second alleged infraction in the courtroom, which I would not object to.

argyll wrote:Does the act specifically say that the check mark has to be in the box ?

Will your video editor testify that video makes things appear to be moving when they are actually stationary ?

I admire your tenacity but I fear the only person you will be inconveniencing is yourself - the Crown is being paid to be there.

Well, for me, I am not inconveniencing myself either. I do shift work, so I'm off that day. When the insurance company ruled 50/50 fault when a driver struck my car, all the advice on the Internet said, don't waste your time arguing the SGI (Provincial Crown Insurance and License Administer) decision- the judge will always rule with SGI. Couple months later, I overruled their faulty decision in a trial, received my 800 deductible and rental car fees for a month, also the safe driver rating points which were applied were immediately quashed. Plus, I love law, politics and arguing, so whatever occurs, I will make the most of. This is my first time in traffic court, though for years of my life, I've been exposed to Family and Criminal Law, which I use to want to pursue as a career.

The Saskatchewan Summary Offenses Regulations as to what defines "completion of ticket" in the Saskatchewan Summary Offenses Act states that in sector 1 (the part where the unmarked boxes are), the offense must be identified in the space provided, later to say "in form," however one wants to interpret that. To me, it's quite clear, defining a space provided, means the space provided, which in this case is that vacant box the officer failed to sign. There is also Sec 209 in the Highway Traffic Act, which was another option beside the box. The Regulation's even includes a carbon copy of the actual ticket as an example, which I have printed, highlighted and will bring to court.

If I were taking a multiple choice test and answered "A" instead of "C", it would be considered invalid, even if it was obvious C was the most obvious answer and I scored 99% on all other parts of the exam- it wouldn't be allowed an amendment after the fact, even if the test administrator knew it was a mistake?

It's pretty clear that the regulations stipulate, "in the space provided." Not having the box actually checked (at all) should technically render it an incomplete ticket (as per the Act).

Of course, you, I and the judge or JP, knows, that this is a mistake and the officer missed the box. But it still is a clear cut violation of the definition of completion of ticket.

If the JP is willing to comply wholeheartedly with what is prescribed in the law, I feel she will be compelled to side with my argument, which I will prove in court.

As for the video expert, what I'd like him to specify is the grainy frames per second rate. Objects appear to be moving slower and at other times quicker, depending on where the lighting is focused. The video can be crystal clear in the day, or under stationary conditions, as you can see when my vehicle is stopped. Frames per second increase to a fluid stream, rather then pausing and going, etc. So I don't actually want him to testify about the stationary object moving, but to downplay the accuracy of objects that are lit with a dash cam incapable of properly displaying those objects. Even a higher end camera would not do a much better job unless it were stationary, with a very steady hand or a tripod. If you review the lit objects/lights especially, in that video, they appear to be enlarging and blinking, when they are NOT. Also as the officer turns, the camera turns and it can make the objects appear as if they moved. When the passerby motor vehicle at the 40/41 second mark disrupts the camera, the lights distort the cameras accuracy. Just before the passerby's motor vehicle disrupts the dashcam, you can, from a distance, notice that it appears my brake lights were activating. That intersection is a rural like one, the stop sign is considerable ways back from the highway and its sloped.

So what appears to be, is not really so. But again, I hope it doesn't get to this stage. I'm trying to downplay the evidence before its' used in court, with the crown agreeing, to only showing the second alleged infraction in the courtroom, which I would not object to.

So today, I got some additional disclosure from the local police (I live in a small town, so its really easy). The police officer for the court intends to show a video from the cruiser- which was taken at night, from a lengthy distance, as "proof" that I failed to properly stop. In my opinion, objects in the video with lights are falsely appearing to have flaming glows around them, lights come and then go black. Thankfully, the speed is also shown that the officer was traveling, which is something that will benefit me in court as my excuse for stopping 99% instead of 100%, was that I had a vehicle proceeding behind me at 70km/hr while I was stopping! Also, the police officer for the court informed me that he is leaving for vacation and will not be able to attend the trial, reminding me, that I can plead guilty any time prior to the trial on Jan 19th. Lol.

Police here use "WatchGuard 4RE" recording system, used for law enforcement purposes. Its high quality definition video, sent to the main police computer wirelessly. It has 4 different modes of recording and 4 different speeds of recording, selected manually by the police administrator. At night time however, the footage is corny and dramatically reduced in quality, it would be comparable to your typical iphone camera, trying to take video from a distance at night and while moving.

I have reviewed the technical specifications of this camera, the "compression method" used is H.264 High Profile, a type of codec.

In a nutshell, the fact that the original data was sent wirelessly, then uploaded to an old fashion CD-ROM, leaves the original video compressed over 1000x.

The H264 codec itself downsizes it 500x, resulting in some data loss.

On the Canadian Bar legal site, they cite the compression and data loss and a risk to the integrity of the video and advise on challenging it.

I've read on the Provincial Evidence Act that if video is to be shown, a video expert can be required to basically translate the video tech specs.

Can anyone here explain the process of challenging the admissibility of evidence into a court room?

Video or no video, the officer still witnessed the offense.

If officer does not show, then you can request the charge be dropped. That is probably best course of action.

Getting on stand and saying you stopped 99% will just mean you admitted you did not stop and by your own words you will be found guilty. You probably do NOT want to testify.

If the officer is not there, but they are still going to proceed with trial and show the video, you can OBJECT to video being shown as the officer that took it is not there for you to cross examine. If they still allow the video to be shown, then you can just point out the video is not that clear and does not clearly show that you did not stop. If they ever asked you if you stopped completely, you can answer "I am not required to answer that as I am not under oath"... do NOT answer that question unless you are under oath on the witness stand (which I recommend you do not do).

jsherk wrote:If officer does not show, then you can request the charge be dropped. That is probably best course of action.

Getting on stand and saying you stopped 99% will just mean you admitted you did not stop and by your own words you will be found guilty. You probably do NOT want to testify.

If the officer is not there, but they are still going to proceed with trial and show the video, you can OBJECT to video being shown as the officer that took it is not there for you to cross examine. If they still allow the video to be shown, then you can just point out the video is not that clear and does not clearly show that you did not stop. If they ever asked you if you stopped completely, you can answer "I am not required to answer that as I am not under oath"... do NOT answer that question unless you are under oath on the witness stand (which I recommend you do not do).

Hi Sherk, thanks for the reply.

Why do you think I should not testify? My "excuse" which I believe is law abiding, for the 2nd infraction is:

From our Traffic Safety Act:

(qq) "stop" means:

(i) when required, a complete cessation from movement; and

(ii) when prohibited, any stopping, even momentarily, of a vehicle,

whether occupied or not, except when necessary to avoid conflict with

other traffic

I believed the officer was going to hit me (I did not know it was a police officer.) The video with Closed Captioning mode shows the officer approaching me while stopped at around 70km/hr, the speed actually registers on the CC camera. I have been struck by a drink driver before so I am very wary.

I scoped out the intersection and ensured it was safe, but took off quickly out of fear, that a vehicle was going to plow into me.

Do you buy this? It's actually true. My concern is the first "infraction" more then the 2nd.

Don't they have to establish the "mens rea," which is guilty mind- as this isn't a liability offence?

From the section of Saskatchewan's Traffic Safety Act that you quoted,

in subsection (i), when it says "when required", that seems to apply to stop signs because it is required by law to stop at a stop sign.

in subsection (ii), when it says "when prohibited", that likely applies to 'No Stopping' signs because it is prohibited by law to stop in a No Stopping zone.

Also, in the Supreme Court ruling R. v. Sault Ste Marie (https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 5/index.do), the Court ruled that, in general, regulatory offences (such as traffic infractions) are considered strict liability offences, which means that the prosecution only needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an offence occurred, but the defence of due diligence (doing everything possible to prevent the offence from happening) and other common law defences can be used. The prosecution need not prove "mens rea", unless the specific wording of the legislation uses words such as "willingly", "knowingly", etc.

However, the specific wording of stop sign infractions in legislation has lent itself to be considered "absolute liability offences". In your case, section 209(6)(a) of the Traffic Safety Act says,

"(6) No driver of a vehicle shall fail to bring the vehicle to a stop:

(a) at every place where a stop sign is erected;"

The word "shall" makes a stop sign infraction lean more towards an absolute liability offence. Similar to strict liability, this means the prosecution only needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an offence occurred. The defence of due diligence, which was available under strict liability, is no longer available for absolute liability offences.

There are three levels of proof required:

- mens rea

- strict liability

- absolute liability

Tickets for things like speeding and failing to stop are considered absolute liability, meaning either yes you did or no did not do it. Whether you meant to do it or not is irrelevent. As soon as you admit you did it, you are guilty and there are no excuses or reasons that will get the ticket dropped, with the exception of your life being in danger.

Disclosure is an ongoing process where the defendant must take an active role. If you wait until court to ask for a typed written break down of the officers notes, the Jusitce of the Peace will question you as to what efforts you made to get a typed version of the notes...at trial, the JP may, or may not, adjourn the matter...The notes are not that hard to read...you went through the first stop sign at 20-25Km/H, went through the 2nd stop sign at 5-6Km/H, Officer had clear unobstructed view...