“Advice On Speeding Ticket 17km/h Over Limit”

Today, I got a speeding ticket for going 67 KM/H in a 50KM/H zone. Below are the following list of details of the ordeal

(Never had any prior tickets, just turned 21, first year G2 license)

I work at the intersection of Bestobell Road/Evans Avenue. I drove my car out of the parking lot on Bestobell Road and proceeded south towards Evans Avenue where I made a left turn east towards Kipling Avenue at a speed of approximately 20KM/H. After completing my left turn, I then followed a red suv I turned on my cruise control set to my current speed of 52 KM/H (limit is 50KM/H). While traveling 600 meters in a span of several seconds, I looked to my right and turned on my air conditioner to then which I proceeded to raise my speed to 55KM/H after passing Bellman Avenue (which I usually do as 200 meters away is the posted speed of 60 KM/H just past Butterick Road) when I noticed a officer waving frantically at me to stop. (Please note, I raised my cruise control after I had passed the officers car). I pulled over and lowered the windows while keeping my hand on the wheels. The officer approached my vehicle and told me "don't you know THIS MEANS STOP?" to which I replied "I'm sorry I did not see you". He told me that I had gone a little over the speed limit to which I replied I'm sorry if I did (not knowing what speed he had clocked me at). As I was roughly 30 meters past Bellman Avenue where his car and radar had been stationed at, he told me that he was going to walk behind my car and to reverse and follow him into the the intersection of Bellman Avenue to which I complied. He took my driver's license and came back with a ticket telling me he had clocked me going 67 KM/H in a 50KM/H zone.

TLDR: Got off work (Bestobell and Evans) and turned left onto Evans Avenue following behind red suv. Unposted limit of 50KM/H between Bestobell and Bellman to which 200 meters after (Butterick) has a posted speed of 60KM/H. Within seconds of making my left turn and setting my cruise control to 52km/h, I get pulled over 600 meters from my work with officer citing I had gone 17KM/H over the limit.

Things to keep in mind:

I can prove where I work and when I got off work through my time card as well as texts and calls with my customers prior to entering my car. (Work cameras may or may not have caught me me turning left onto Evans)

I have no way of proving the speed I set for my cruise control other than me knowing that it was set to 52km/h

Red SUV was a RAM however I do not remember anything else

Officer had waved for me to stop and followed by foot behind my car

Officer has audio recording however I'm not sure he had video

My job requires I drive. I drive my personal car 10km one way to and from work. I drive company car approximately 500kms a day and have never been pulled over.

Please let me know how I should fight this ticket and if it's possible to win. I'm a first year G2 license holder and driver with very expensive insurance ($9000 annually) and don't want my premiums to raise.

Edit: Please note, I am not fighting this ticket because I do not want to pay the $57 fine as taking a day off work I'd lose potentially several hundred and a dozen customers; I'm doing it to save my driving record and potentially thousands on my insurance over the next few years if I am found not guilty.

If you say, "I was only going 52km/h and then up to 55km/h", you will still be found guilty of speeding.

You can request a trial. Request disclosure. At trial, you can talk to the prosecutor beforehand and ask for the speed to be lowered to at least 15km/h over the speed limit - this will reduce demerit points down to 0 (16-29km/h over the speed limit is 3 demerit points). Regardless, speeding is a minor conviction for insurance purposes.

I understand speeding is speeding regardless of how much faster I go however 52 and 67 is a HUGE difference.

I forgot to mention, i did a left turn out of the company parking lot which is beside AA Floors as I dont like waiting for the light on bestobell so I merged onto oncoming traffic

I do not plan on making any plea deals. I will fight this ticket while trying to cast doubt on the officers recollection of the event, when he first had sight of my vehicle, the range his radar/laser when he supposedly clocked me going 67 as well as the accuracy of his equipment as there were cars both in front and behind me at the time

I will update post when i get a disclosure and in the meantime see if my neighbors camera recorded any cars before and after my left turn into evans avenue to help my case

Thanks

If it is your word against the officers word, who do you think they are going to believe? Usually they will take officers word over yours!

That said, you should plead Not Guilty and request a trial with the officer present. Once you get your Notice of Trial, you can request disclosure (officer notes and info on speed measuring device used). You really can't decide how to fight it until you see the notes, so once you get them, post them here for us to review.

1 to 15 over is 0 demerits and 16 to 29 over is 3 demerits but a speeding charge of even 1 km/h over can affect your insurance, even if it is 0 demerits.

Rayyy wrote:I understand speeding is speeding regardless of how much faster I go however 52 and 67 is a HUGE difference.

Speeding is what they call an absolute liability offense. That means you were either speeding or you weren't. There's no in between. What the other poster was trying to tell you was you'll just be admitting your own guilt and the trial will be over before it even starts.

Rayyy wrote:Please note, I am not fighting this ticket because I do not want to pay the $57 fine as taking a day off work I'd lose potentially several hundred and a dozen customers; I'm doing it to save my driving record and potentially thousands on my insurance over the next few years if I am found not guilty.

Your provider wont care whether it's 52 or 67. They don't calculate a surcharge based on the exact kilometer. They'll charge you the exact same thing whether it's 52 or 67.

bend wrote:Speeding is what they call an absolute liability offense. That means you were either speeding or you weren't. There's no in between. What the other poster was trying to tell you was you'll just be admitting your own guilt and the trial will be over before it even starts.

Speeding from 1 over to 49 over is absolute liability, although the defence of necessity is still available to you. But the defence of necessity is a pretty high bar to reach. So if you were being chased by somebody with a gun and trying to get away, then that would probably qualify. However things like "I had to speed up to pass the cars in front of me and one of those cars started to speed up so I had to speed up more to pass him because there was a car coming the other way" won't fly.

Speeding 50+ is strict liability.

Slight correction. Speeding is always absolute liability. The offence of stunt driving with the speeding component is strict liability.

So what if, for example, one were driving through an intersection (say, travelling north) and happened to see someone flying westbound on the cross street? The only way to avoid being T-boned and, likely, killed is to put the hammer down and get through the intersection. Now what?

(I used that example based on two stories I've heard of fatal crashes caused by impaired drivers doing exactly what I described)

Also, is there a reference guide somewhere as to what's strict and what's absolute? Or does one simply gain that knowledge from experience?

So your life was in danger by the other vehicle that was going to t-bone you so that would probably qualify as a defence of necessity. However to get out of the way would only require a few seconds of speeding up, so how fast could you really be going in that short period of time?

Let's just say if I were actually in that position, I'd probably be so terrified, I'd have trouble taking my foot off the gas afterwards. But one could easily accelerate quickly from, say, 50 or 60 to, say, 80 or 90. I'd also want to make darn sure I was clear of the intersection.

Feel free to read some case laws to get an idea of what does and does not qualify:

From R. v. DeFrias, 2016 ONCJ 313:

THE DEFENCE OF NECESSITY

[25] The Supreme Court of Canada provided the following summary of the defence of necessity in R. v. Perka:

1) the defence of necessity could be conceptualized as either a justification or an excuse;

2) it should be recognized in Canada as an excuse, operating by virtue of s. 7(3) of the Criminal Code;

3) necessity as an excuse implies no vindication of the deeds of the actor;

4) the criterion is the moral involuntariness of the wrongful action;

5) this involuntariness is measured on the basis of society's expectation of appropriate and normal resistance to pressure;

6) negligence or involvement in criminal or immoral activity does not disentitle the actor to the excuse of necessity;

7) actions or circumstances which indicate that the wrongful deed was not truly involuntary do disentitle;

the existence of a reasonable legal alternative similarly disentitles; to be involuntary the act must be inevitable, unavoidable and afford no reasonable opportunity for an alternative course of action that does not involve a breach of the law;

9) the defence only applies in circumstances of imminent risk where the action was taken to avoid a direct and immediate peril;

10) where the accused places before the Court sufficient evidence to raise the issue, the onus is on the Crown to meet it beyond a reasonable doubt.[1]

Thanks.