“Right Turn On Red Light Camera - Complete Stop”

Hey Decatur,

That's what I figure and my contention - "at" and "immediately" will be interpreted based on conditions at the time.

Quick question to anyone who can respond - I don't have a phone number and I don't believe one is necessary for a disclosure request. Is this correct?

eg: do I need to provide a phone number in my POA disclosure request or is a mailing address sufficient in and of itself?

As well, can I request that they mail it to me or do I have to go and pick it up? This seems like a needless action they've instituted to make it more difficult to obtain my disclosure, especially considering they require a disclosure request in writing.

AnyyVen wrote:Hey Decatur,

That's what I figure and my contention - "at" and "immediately" will be interpreted based on conditions at the time.

Quick question to anyone who can respond - I don't have a phone number and I don't believe one is necessary for a disclosure request. Is this correct?

eg: do I need to provide a phone number in my POA disclosure request or is a mailing address sufficient in and of itself?

As well, can I request that they mail it to me or do I have to go and pick it up? This seems like a needless action they've instituted to make it more difficult to obtain my disclosure, especially considering they require a disclosure request in writing.

About disclosure. Its your disclosure. Once you request it, its your responsibility to get it and to check to see if its ready. Theres no requirement for them to bend over backwards to make sure you get it.

Hey Decatur and Zazota,

Thank you for your replies.

-

As well, let me preface by just stating by no means am I trying to 'game the system' or put up barriers, I'm merely interested in what would constitute due diligence and reasonable expectations on the part of the crown; eg, if I have to go pick up my disclosure myself, so be it, but I still have some questions if you are capable of answering.

I have noticed that some jurisdictions will mail disclosure, some will email it, others (such as Toronto) state you must pick it up; others allow request via email or phone, some (Toronto) require written notice.

The crown requires a physical written document, ostensibly the traditional medium being mail. As well, both the charge and notice of trial were delivered by mail; as well, if I do not have a phone number, that also means they will have to likely submit a letter to me notifying me that my disclosure is ready or available.

1) Is it not reasonable to have an expectation they would submit my disclosure to me via mail then?

2) What grants a jurisdiction power to determine what method of request and delivery are valid? (I would think this is important in case, for instance in my case, they are "unable to reach me" to notify me it is ready, whereas other jurisdictions utilize methods that invalidate this argument.)

3) What if you requested disclosure but were not a resident of Toronto, being in another city or province?

Regarding 2) especially, I recall one trial where the crown tried to argue that the defendant had not provided a phone number and therefore could not contact him to get his disclosure; the JP (maybe judge, I am not sure) responded that the defendant had provided a mailing address, and the crown had not fulfilled due diligence by attempting to contact him via this method (I believe the specific wording was actually "to request a phone number"). If anyone is familiar with this case and could provide any more information I'd be interested in that too.

Any insight anyone can provide would be appreciated, just trying to navigate all this.

You're making life overly complex for yourself. Your tactics are just going to work against you.

First off, as has already been said, disclosure is YOURS to be had. YOU are the one who has to follow up and make all diligent efforts to acquire it. In other words, they aren't going to mail it to you, nor are they even going to write to you to indicate its ready. YOU have to call in or email them to follow up. There's really no excuse today why an indigent person can't simply go to the public library, sign up for a free email address and do this. If you have a cellphone, you'll be hard pressed to justify why that wasn't use. You clearly have access to internet since you're posting on this site!!!! So, any argument as to why you couldn't take reasonable steps to follow up will simply be met with you attending court, getting an adjournment (while you get the disclosure in person) and have to come back. In other words, you're just wasting your time. Plus, the disclosure should have already all been sent to you----the photos and the cover page indicating your speed, time, location of offence, etc. Red light camera offences are not likely to yield a stay of proceedings for non-disclosure. It simply does not happen in practice since it is sent right away.

Secondly, remember that there's no prejudice to the Crown whatsoever. There are no witnesses to be called and the evidence is already preserved, so any delay really is only wasting YOUR time; no one elses.

Thirdly, you'll have virtually no chance of arguing that going 30km per hour, you would have been able to stop before the line. If your argument is that you stopped way BEFORE the line and were already doing 30km at the point of the photo while making your right turn, then that argument will also be shot down as well. That would be mean you stopped at an unreasonable location whereby you stopped before the intersection but at a spot where you could not reasonably see the entire intersection, nor be seen by others. Its just pure physics dealing with speed, acceleration and distance! Such a stop would not be consistent with the 'pith and substance' of the HTA legislation. After all, the purpose of stopping at the line is to 1) have vehicles STOP first before the intersection; and 2) be able to see clearly AND be seen clearly by others at the intersection PRIOR to any further movements.

Bottom line: definitely try your luck with your arguments, but I can tell you that they have been tried numerous times and have ALWAYS been shot down quickly; so quick that you can almost see smoke come from them!!!

highwaystar wrote:You're making life overly complex for yourself. Your tactics are just going to work against you.

First off, as has already been said, disclosure is YOURS to be had. YOU are the one who has to follow up and make all diligent efforts to acquire it. In other words, they aren't going to mail it to you, nor are they even going to write to you to indicate its ready. YOU have to call in or email them to follow up. There's really no excuse today why an indigent person can't simply go to the public library, sign up for a free email address and do this. If you have a cellphone, you'll be hard pressed to justify why that wasn't use. You clearly have access to internet since you're posting on this site!!!! So, any argument as to why you couldn't take reasonable steps to follow up will simply be met with you attending court, getting an adjournment (while you get the disclosure in person) and have to come back. In other words, you're just wasting your time. Plus, the disclosure should have already all been sent to you----the photos and the cover page indicating your speed, time, location of offence, etc. Red light camera offences are not likely to yield a stay of proceedings for non-disclosure. It simply does not happen in practice since it is sent right away.

Secondly, remember that there's no prejudice to the Crown whatsoever. There are no witnesses to be called and the evidence is already preserved, so any delay really is only wasting YOUR time; no one elses.

Thirdly, you'll have virtually no chance of arguing that going 30km per hour, you would have been able to stop before the line. If your argument is that you stopped way BEFORE the line and were already doing 30km at the point of the photo while making your right turn, then that argument will also be shot down as well. That would be mean you stopped at an unreasonable location whereby you stopped before the intersection but at a spot where you could not reasonably see the entire intersection, nor be seen by others. Its just pure physics dealing with speed, acceleration and distance! Such a stop would not be consistent with the 'pith and substance' of the HTA legislation. After all, the purpose of stopping at the line is to 1) have vehicles STOP first before the intersection; and 2) be able to see clearly AND be seen clearly by others at the intersection PRIOR to any further movements.

Bottom line: definitely try your luck with your arguments, but I can tell you that they have been tried numerous times and have ALWAYS been shot down quickly; so quick that you can almost see smoke come from them!!!

Hey highwaystar,

Thanks for your response and also taking the time to write a detailed reply.

As you said, "YOU have to call in or email them to follow up." Perfect - that's exactly what I'll do. I'm not trying to be difficult, but no, I do not make use of a personal phone nor any sort of phone number that can be reliably used. As well, their website does not state it will email you disclosure nor notify you via email it will be ready. Therefore, their procedure puts me in a bind. But if I have provided a means by which to contact me and they make no move to do so, I believe that does indeed constitute a failure of due diligence, and as I mentioned I think there is jurisprudence to that accord.

If you have spent time at a POA office you'll know that it's anything but inefficient. They typically don't even accept new arrivals within two hours of closing; therefore, I think making me come to pick it up whereas most other jurisdictions (Durham, Waterloo, others) will deliver it to you remotely is not "bending over backwards," as has been said before - I think it's duly reasonable, especially considering they expect the same from me for the request. Personally, it does feel like a stonewall tactic, but that's not relevant now is it. I fail to see how expecting them to send a letter is unreasonable considering they've already sent two.

Regardless of the contents of my disclosure, it is still my right to request one, and their obligation to fulfill it: I do not however intend to cause myself excessive difficulty in obtaining it. I will fulfill my due diligence in obtaining it, as I always do, but I will not absolve the crown of all responsibility of that fulfillment.

If the OHTA wants to consider some stop to be "unreasonable" then it should specify some kind of criteria beyond "immediately" before the intersection, and I don't think that's ridiculous to ask. When laws are left fuzzy or open ended they are prone to interpretation of the same nature. Additionally, how does this jive with the sensor range of the camera? What if I had stopped an inch further forward and it wouldn't have tripped?

Finally, that's not really my argument. Rather, my argument is that I know that I stopped, but any evidence I could have had is unavailable now due to an unnecessary delay between the commission of the act and my first notification. If a police officer had stopped me, I would have had due cause to note the time, conditions, and preserve my videographic evidence, whether it proved me innocent or guilty. My argument is that I am now rendered unable to do that, and I believe that that is a violation of my rights. If I had been in the middle of the intersection, yes, that would be far harder to defend because I would have no cause to be there, but right turns by their very nature are much more of a grey area as they strongly rely on subjective judgment. Therefore, it was the province's choice to apply this system to this situation and furthermore their responsibility to notify me which they did with unacceptable tardiness. Given that the intersection is clear of traffic and pedestrians, the moral implications of this are therefore questionable and the charge is purely punitive.

Again irrelevant to the actual facts but a personal opinion, it's all letter and no spirit, and mechanical application of the law has fundamentally been argued against. Then again, I have a serious problem with relying on financial motivation to goad dangerous drivers into behaving; if they actually wanted to address the behaviour, they should photograph the face of the driver so that we can seek measures to revoke their driving privileges, because I guarantee you'll find most are repeat offenders. Dangerous driving is not a one-off.

Thus, in this specific case, yes, I believe I have a valid case, if for no other reason than to have the province address these issues. I do not believe for one second the red light camera system is infallible, both in light of photoradar of the days past and as a design of sensor systems myself, so the knee-jerk response of "you're guilt just pay up" is even more summary than the province's system and I don't completely understand it.

In the end, I don't believe that I am wasting my time, because I'm doing one of the most fundamentally important things any Canadian can and should, and that's attempting to make full use of all rights and means to them to obtain what they believe is the satisfaction of justice.

I don't believe I deserve this ticket, I think the system is flawed, and I think that's why I got this ticket, and I want the province to address that, successful or not. They impugned my ability to defend myself, and therefore the question of guilt is poisoned - this is exactly why I have a dashcam. I think this is reasonably, or at least necessarily rectifiable. And so I think the matter of guilt is the cart we're putting before the horse here.

Thus, in my questions, I am trying to make sure I am fulfilling all my responsibilities in my efforts. I am trying to make sure I am not doing anything dubious, unethical, illegal or otherwise. Whether or not it makes life easier or harder for the crown is not my concern.

You're not doing anything illegal nor immoral by defending yourself. Its your absolute right to do so---even if you did the offence. So, kudos to you for being principled that way. Most folks don't have the time nor energy to waste on such things because they know that the odds of them winning a case like yours are about 1-2%, plus the consequences are not longer term (its just money)!

Your arguments are really more aimed against the system not the actual evidence of your case! Those arguments are more political in nature; not for the courts to decide. The courts just simply apply the current law to your case and convict you. If you don't like the way things are done, you can write your MPP or better yet, run for office yourself. The court is not going to entertain such arguments (i.e. they like to preserve judicial independence).

As long as you go in with your eyes wide open, you won't be left with wishful thinking. From a legal perspective, your arguments are very weak. They've been tried and tested several times in the past. Take it from someone who has done hundreds of POA trials, including dozens of RLC charges. Your dissatisfaction with how disclosure is delivered to you or the unfairness of red light camera system evidence is not going to carry any weight on the merits of your case.

But, by all means, carry on with your intention of defending yourself. You'll not only learn more about the court system and its players, but feel good that you didn't just give the government your hard earned money. But, truly stick to your guns----they will undoubtedly offer you a reduction in fine between $150-$180---so, you should turn it down and truly stick to your principles, otherwise, you'd let them win!

Thanks highwaystar.

I get what you're saying and I appreciate the heads up. That's how I'm trying to look at it too - that I have nothing to lose here.

After all, don't forget that just a few years ago these charges were failing regularly because of fatal defects on the notice itself.

Without trying to get too far off topic I do have a question regarding this whole disclosure thing. After all, if the crown tries to give you your disclosure at the trial -

which they often try - the minimum remedy which is easily arguable is an adjournment. In one trial the crown literally waited until the end of the session - 3 hours later - to dismiss my charges (likely in spite). So I take that rights around disclosure are pretty tightly guarded.

So for instance, Toronto has a form for you to fill out and says they will call you when it is ready for you to pick it up. Their representative told me on the phone that they do not send mail anymore and the answer on email was ambiguous if not dubious. I don't have a phone because it's expensive and for me, needless, and as far as I know, are not even an "essential service." To my knowledge, there is no law or otherwise requiring me to use their form or have a phone; therefore, I can send a valid disclosure request that doesn't even consider having a phone number.

I've been long out of the loop from the time when I could fax in a request and have my package mailed to me, so I don't even know what the rules are anymore (re: bringing your ticket to the appropriate court office). Hypothetically - and I realize that this isn't exactly a landmark trial or capital charge, but the law is the law - given that they have no legal backing for enforcing these policies (I assume?), then, wouldn't/couldn't that eventually be challenged and fall apart at some point in the process (including appeals)?

Op, I hate to break it to you but you already HAVE disclosure----its all on the ticket you received. The pictures were enclosed, as was the information regarding speed, intersection and time after the light was red that the car passed through. You seem to be confusing RLC charges with other HTA offences; but its not the same. There is no other additional disclosure given on those charges.

Furthermore, I just noticed that the light was already red for 12.7 seconds when the car went through on the red. Given that time delay, the best fine reduction you might get is about $200. The prosecutor won't go any lower than that (i.e. you won't qualify for the reduction within the $150-$180 range as I previously stated).

"I just wanted to reply and let everyone know that my court date is coming up in December, basically right at the edge of the 10-month mark that would otherwise see a section 11b".

Why are you quoting 10 months? I thought that i had changed?

Hello AnyyVev,

If I may be presumptuous, I believe I know why you got this red light camera ticket.

It is because, as noted, it is not a 90 degree intersection.

I say this because I received exactly the same offence at an intersection that was also not 90 degrees. Mine was 41 degrees from the vertical.

Now, if you are telling the truth that you came to a complete stop, then I believe I am right. Let me explain. The camera, I believe, is fooled into thinking you are going straight when in fact you are making a right turn.

In my case, and I honestly cannot say whether or not I came to a complete stop, I made an extremely wide right turn due to the fact that it was 41 and not 90 and also because it was in the extreme left side of the right hand turn lane, hence the wide ride turn. My red was red for 0.3 seconds, my delay was 1.1 seconds and it says I was travelling 44km/hr in both pictures. According to this then, I travelled 14 metres or 47 feet. In that time I have only travelled one car length.

Now, my argument hinges on the kind of information the camera sees and what it does with this information. The software, I believe, digitizes your car so it becomes a moving dot. Camera software is stupid it does not know what a car is and it cannot "see" the way we do. Now, if the camera sees a moving dot, then it all boils down to vector algebra, if in fact that is what the camera is doing. The software is following this moving dot in time, therefore speed and direction. When it is following direction then it might be breaking direction down into its vector components, i.e, it simplifies the information (vertical and horizontal components).

Now, a dot making an extreme right hand turn, i.e., a 90 degrees has a much smaller vertical component in time than a car not making a 90 degree turn. So the camera may interpret the greater vertical component, in time, in a wide turn as going straight through.

This is all conjecture on my part.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of failed to stop at a right turn fall on crooked intersections like yours and mine.

1. My main objection to my ticket is the wording, like yours it says "proceeded through the intersection" (I looked at your ticket and the wording is the same as mine). Now, I did not "proceed through the intersection". How would it be worded differently if in fact I crossed the intersection and actually did go through the red light. It would be the same wording. Now wording has to be SPECIFIC, this is the law. You can't have making a right on a red light and crossing a red light have the same offence definition.

This is from a Toronto Star article where Roger Brown makes the distinction between going "through the intersection" and just making a right:

"Red light-running is more than just running straight through the intersection…its any time you dont stop at a red light."

The citys cameras are also equipped to pick up drivers who dont come to a full stop before making a right-hand turn, said Roger Brown, manager of the traffic safety unit for the City of Toronto.

I would also like to know what the wording is on the ticket for people who do not stop while making a 90 degree turn.

2. Also, I would like to know what the word "proceeded" means in "....and that vehicle proceeded through the intersection when the light had been red for 1.4 seconds". Does it mean my car started moving again after 1.4 seconds, did it cross the line after 1.4 seconds? Either way does it not say I was stopped for 1.1 (1.4- 0.3)seconds? And does going through a red light really merit the same $325 fine as turning right at a red light - but that is beside the point. And there is no way I was travelling 44 km/hr in the second picture - I just did not cover 47 feet.

You say you are a student. Perhaps you can go to a computer engineering professor and ask how they think the camera digitizes the information and mention the crooked angle and my vector algebra hypotheses.

If you believe, that because our cases are very similar, that I have a reasonable argument, then you are welcome to discuss this with me further. Too bad, it is coming close to December. My court case is in June 2018.

Good luck

arv wrote:My red was red for 0.3 seconds, my delay was 1.1 seconds and it says I was travelling 44km/hr in both pictures. According to this then, I travelled 14 metres or 47 feet. In that time I have only travelled one car length.

I don't believe the speed reading changes throughout the pictures. It should be the same initial reading on all of them.

arv wrote:Now, my argument hinges on the kind of information the camera sees and what it does with this information. The software, I believe, digitizes your car so it becomes a moving dot. Camera software is stupid it does not know what a car is and it cannot "see" the way we do. Now, if the camera sees a moving dot, then it all boils down to vector algebra, if in fact that is what the camera is doing. The software is following this moving dot in time, therefore speed and direction. When it is following direction then it might be breaking direction down into its vector components, i.e, it simplifies the information (vertical and horizontal components).

The cameras are activated by, I believe, a magnet in the ground. The camera is not drawing anything. They don't really do anything other than take a series of photos.