Hi all, I got ticket this morning to disobey the Sign U turn. I was going down an airport road and took a U turn right before the Bresler drive and the undercovered officer pulled me over and gave $110 ticket. He put 09 in year field on the ticket. Is that for the plate# or the vehicle year? If it for vehicle, then it is wrong. I was reading through different forums and ticketcombat.com and learned that if there is a fatal error on the ticket, the case will be dismissed. What are my options to fight and defend the case? Thanks in advance for help
Hi all,
I got ticket this morning to disobey the Sign U turn. I was going down an airport road and took a U turn right before the Bresler drive and the undercovered officer pulled me over and gave $110 ticket. He put 09 in year field on the ticket. Is that for the plate# or the vehicle year? If it for vehicle, then it is wrong. I was reading through different forums and ticketcombat.com and learned that if there is a fatal error on the ticket, the case will be dismissed. What are my options to fight and defend the case?
Do I have to go to the same location as on the ticket or file a trial in any other location? Also, how are the chances of dismissal as I really don't want to pay fine and loose 2 demerit points. I am really worried about my insurance rate.
Do I have to go to the same location as on the ticket or file a trial in any other location? Also, how are the chances of dismissal as I really don't want to pay fine and loose 2 demerit points. I am really worried about my insurance rate.
Your best bet is to go through the process and see what technicalities are out there. That could include 11b, lack of disclosure, the cop not showing up etc etc etc. Check out the Ticket Combat site as it has a great primer. I wish I could lose demerits every time I get ticketed :D Actually you gather the demerits until you get 9 in a period of 2 years and that wins you an interview in which you justify why you should keep your licence. That has nothing to do with your insurance rates. Unless you get nailed for something SERIOUS like going 49+km/h over the limit, careless driving, drunk driving, the insurance companies treat all convictions the same, regardless of the demerit points. That's why it usually doesn't pay off to accept a lesser charge (even if it doesn't carry demerits) after going through the trouble of showing up in court. And yes it is the location noted on the ticket. You can't have your Toronto West case heard in Sudbury.
Your best bet is to go through the process and see what technicalities are out there. That could include 11b, lack of disclosure, the cop not showing up etc etc etc. Check out the Ticket Combat site as it has a great primer.
I wish I could lose demerits every time I get ticketed Actually you gather the demerits until you get 9 in a period of 2 years and that wins you an interview in which you justify why you should keep your licence. That has nothing to do with your insurance rates.
Unless you get nailed for something SERIOUS like going 49+km/h over the limit, careless driving, drunk driving, the insurance companies treat all convictions the same, regardless of the demerit points. That's why it usually doesn't pay off to accept a lesser charge (even if it doesn't carry demerits) after going through the trouble of showing up in court.
And yes it is the location noted on the ticket. You can't have your Toronto West case heard in Sudbury.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
I am posting an image to show exactly what happened. The cop was looking in the door mirror waiting 25meters ahead of me and as soon as I made a Turn and entered in the side street, he made a U turn and caught me on the side street. Looking at the image and the details of what happened, wht are my options?
I am posting an image to show exactly what happened.
The cop was looking in the door mirror waiting 25meters ahead of me and as soon as I made a Turn and entered in the side street, he made a U turn and caught me on the side street.
Looking at the image and the details of what happened, wht are my options?
From your diagram it looks like you made a big left turn. A u-turn is You originally posted that you made a u turn. Did you? Did you completely reverse your direction of travel or did you make a wide coat hanger left turn? This makes all the difference. And it also looks like you can turn left into that parking lot which is not prohibited (unless there's a sign). If you made the u turn farther ahead, went back and then made a right hand turn, that would be prohibited. But if you made a wide left turn, that is not illegal.
From your diagram it looks like you made a big left turn. A u-turn is
a turn, made by a vehicle, in the shape of a U, resulting in a reversal of direction.
You originally posted that you made a u turn. Did you? Did you completely reverse your direction of travel or did you make a wide coat hanger left turn? This makes all the difference.
And it also looks like you can turn left into that parking lot which is not prohibited (unless there's a sign). If you made the u turn farther ahead, went back and then made a right hand turn, that would be prohibited. But if you made a wide left turn, that is not illegal.
Thanks for your reply ticketcombat. You are right. I did not make a U-Turn. It was a wide left turn and at any point I was not in a reverse direction. I made a Left turn and entered in the parking lot. The cop was standing ahead of me observing everything in his door mirror. I am also sure that people always take that turn to enter the parking lot. If you can give me some wordings to fight, I will greatly appreciate. Thanks again.
Thanks for your reply ticketcombat. You are right. I did not make a U-Turn. It was a wide left turn and at any point I was not in a reverse direction. I made a Left turn and entered in the parking lot. The cop was standing ahead of me observing everything in his door mirror. I am also sure that people always take that turn to enter the parking lot.
If you can give me some wordings to fight, I will greatly appreciate.
that post is going to end up a lot like others along the street.....with 5 different signs on it (no uturn, no left turn, no stopping, no standing, no parking) just b/c some driver was too ............ ah never mind!
that post is going to end up a lot like others along the street.....with 5 different signs on it (no uturn, no left turn, no stopping, no standing, no parking) just b/c some driver was too ............ ah never mind!
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Unlike certain MPPs who want to change the law because of one accident or fatality? *************************************** Wilchris, I think your diagram and what I posted (the definition) should be more than enough to beat the ticket. Although it would be fun to cross-examine the cop and then have him read a definition of "u turn" from a dictionary, you should take the higher road. Just monitor his testimony to make sure he doesn't say you reversed direction. Get him to state you went "around" the sign onto the parking lot. Then when it's your turn, show the diagram, testify as to what you did and read the definition. That should be enough. Good luck and good fight!
hwybear wrote:
that post is going to end up a lot like others along the street.....with 5 different signs on it (no uturn, no left turn, no stopping, no standing, no parking) just b/c some driver was too ............ ah never mind!
Unlike certain MPPs who want to change the law because of one accident or fatality?
***************************************
Wilchris, I think your diagram and what I posted (the definition) should be more than enough to beat the ticket. Although it would be fun to cross-examine the cop and then have him read a definition of "u turn" from a dictionary, you should take the higher road.
Just monitor his testimony to make sure he doesn't say you reversed direction. Get him to state you went "around" the sign onto the parking lot.
Then when it's your turn, show the diagram, testify as to what you did and read the definition. That should be enough.
Yeah, Mississauga and Brampton don't let the grass grow under their feet on many different levels... Toronto is the opposite... on many... yeah that's what we get for voting in David Miller. :evil: Anyway you've got a good chance of beating this at trial. You didn't commit the offence as charged. You've got a good diagram of what you did. Back it up by taking some photographs of the sign that you were ticketed for allegedly disobeying, the area, etc (don't forget the time-date stamp). It just adds a little more evidence. TC already gave you a good foundation to fight it and he knows more than I do, so no point in repeating that. Even better: Go back to Airport Road, park in the parking lot with your camera, and take photographs of people making the same turn. :shock: That way when you're questioning the officer, you can show with undeniable photographic evidence, in addition to the diagram that you already have, that no U-turn was made; therefore, you didn't disobey a sign. (Your Worship, I would like to submit these photographs that I took myself on this date of various drivers performing the same turn that I was ticketed for by Constable So-and-So. As you can see, your Worship, at no point did this manoeuvre involve making a U-turn.) It just augments what TC suggested. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. You didn't disobey the sign and you should not have a hard time convincing the JP of that. By the way has your disclosure package been made available to you yet?
Yeah, Mississauga and Brampton don't let the grass grow under their feet on many different levels... Toronto is the opposite... on many... yeah that's what we get for voting in David Miller.
Anyway you've got a good chance of beating this at trial. You didn't commit the offence as charged. You've got a good diagram of what you did. Back it up by taking some photographs of the sign that you were ticketed for allegedly disobeying, the area, etc (don't forget the time-date stamp). It just adds a little more evidence. TC already gave you a good foundation to fight it and he knows more than I do, so no point in repeating that. Even better: Go back to Airport Road, park in the parking lot with your camera, and take photographs of people making the same turn. That way when you're questioning the officer, you can show with undeniable photographic evidence, in addition to the diagram that you already have, that no U-turn was made; therefore, you didn't disobey a sign. (Your Worship, I would like to submit these photographs that I took myself on this date of various drivers performing the same turn that I was ticketed for by Constable So-and-So. As you can see, your Worship, at no point did this manoeuvre involve making a U-turn.) It just augments what TC suggested.
I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. You didn't disobey the sign and you should not have a hard time convincing the JP of that.
By the way has your disclosure package been made available to you yet?
Glad we have a prosecutor that is on the ball....makes all photos by defendants inadmissable!! Excellent work!
Radar Identified wrote:
Back it up by taking some photographs of the sign that you were ticketed for allegedly disobeying, the area, etc (don't forget the time-date stamp). It just adds a little more evidence
Glad we have a prosecutor that is on the ball....makes all photos by defendants inadmissable!! Excellent work!
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
GTA provincial offences courts accept photos from defendants all the time, they just need the time-date stamp and the person who took the photos to be present and testify. If there's any concern, get the photos printed, go to a Commissioner of Oaths and sign an affadavit/declaration saying that the photos were taken at the location in question, they show the act that you committed at same location, etc. On what grounds is the Prosecutor getting the defense photos tossed?
hwybear wrote:
Glad we have a prosecutor that is on the ball....makes all photos by defendants inadmissable!! Excellent work!
GTA provincial offences courts accept photos from defendants all the time, they just need the time-date stamp and the person who took the photos to be present and testify. If there's any concern, get the photos printed, go to a Commissioner of Oaths and sign an affadavit/declaration saying that the photos were taken at the location in question, they show the act that you committed at same location, etc.
On what grounds is the Prosecutor getting the defense photos tossed?
GTA provincial offences courts accept photos from defendants all the time, they just need the time-date stamp and the person who took the photos to be present and testify. If there's any concern, get the photos printed, go to a Commissioner of Oaths and sign an affadavit/declaration saying that the photos were taken at the location in question, they show the act that you committed at same location, etc. On what grounds is the Prosecutor getting the defense photos tossed? - time/date must be the same as offence date as person can not prove things were identical on another date (even growth of vegetation changes daily, etc.) - photo must be available on CD and in a "RAW" format, raw format prevents altering of a photo with a photo editing program - qualifications of person to take a photo (courses an/or training) Basically all the same things defences have hammered on police for years, working in reverse against the defence.
Radar Identified wrote:
hwybear wrote:
Glad we have a prosecutor that is on the ball....makes all photos by defendants inadmissable!! Excellent work!
GTA provincial offences courts accept photos from defendants all the time, they just need the time-date stamp and the person who took the photos to be present and testify. If there's any concern, get the photos printed, go to a Commissioner of Oaths and sign an affadavit/declaration saying that the photos were taken at the location in question, they show the act that you committed at same location, etc.
On what grounds is the Prosecutor getting the defense photos tossed?
- time/date must be the same as offence date as person can not prove things were identical on another date (even growth of vegetation changes daily, etc.)
- photo must be available on CD and in a "RAW" format, raw format prevents altering of a photo with a photo editing program
- qualifications of person to take a photo (courses an/or training)
Basically all the same things defences have hammered on police for years, working in reverse against the defence.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Hmm... that's interesting. Will add that to the "checklist." :D Only issues I've seen here in T-dot are: - Photo is trying to show sign/view was "obscured" by something other than a building or permanent fixture; - Photo is trying to show road conditions caused by weather (it was snowy, wet, etc) but the photo was not taken almost immediately at scene of the offence; - Defendant did not have originals (if using old roll film) or did not have the camera with data card and originals on the data card to verify no tampering had occurred; - Photographer was not present in courtoom. That's a new angle. Camera is a device in common usage by the general public. Unless it's one of those fancy professional devices with 50 attachments and is the size of a small refrigerator, reading the manual should suffice. (I 'spose the Prosecutor could ask the defendant for disclosure of the camera manual.) :shock:
Hmm... that's interesting.
hwybear wrote:
- photo must be available on CD and in a "RAW" format, raw format prevents altering of a photo with a photo editing program
Will add that to the "checklist."
Only issues I've seen here in T-dot are:
- Photo is trying to show sign/view was "obscured" by something other than a building or permanent fixture;
- Photo is trying to show road conditions caused by weather (it was snowy, wet, etc) but the photo was not taken almost immediately at scene of the offence;
- Defendant did not have originals (if using old roll film) or did not have the camera with data card and originals on the data card to verify no tampering had occurred;
- Photographer was not present in courtoom.
hwybear wrote:
qualifications of person to take a photo (courses an/or training)
That's a new angle. Camera is a device in common usage by the general public. Unless it's one of those fancy professional devices with 50 attachments and is the size of a small refrigerator, reading the manual should suffice. (I 'spose the Prosecutor could ask the defendant for disclosure of the camera manual.)
That's a new angle. Camera is a device in common usage by the general public. Unless it's one of those fancy professional devices with 50 attachments and is the size of a small refrigerator, reading the manual should suffice. (I 'spose the Prosecutor could ask the defendant for disclosure of the camera manual.) :shock: I can not use a simple point an shoot digital camera and enter it as evidence. JP will not accept that I am not trained to use a camera for taking pictures of a crash. I would have to call out a officer trained in the use of a camera. Our prosecutor takes the same stance towards defence and it works. We are able to enter photos taken on those $6 35mm film cameras, provided we have the orginals plus another copy of all photos should defence inquire. The other way was poloroid, photo copy the pictures and bring the orginals to court. All this makes no sense when digital will imprint date/time....but arguement is ability to distort the digital images with a photoshop program.
Radar Identified wrote:
hwybear wrote:
qualifications of person to take a photo (courses an/or training)
That's a new angle. Camera is a device in common usage by the general public. Unless it's one of those fancy professional devices with 50 attachments and is the size of a small refrigerator, reading the manual should suffice. (I 'spose the Prosecutor could ask the defendant for disclosure of the camera manual.)
I can not use a simple point an shoot digital camera and enter it as evidence. JP will not accept that I am not trained to use a camera for taking pictures of a crash. I would have to call out a officer trained in the use of a camera. Our prosecutor takes the same stance towards defence and it works.
We are able to enter photos taken on those $6 35mm film cameras, provided we have the orginals plus another copy of all photos should defence inquire. The other way was poloroid, photo copy the pictures and bring the orginals to court. All this makes no sense when digital will imprint date/time....but arguement is ability to distort the digital images with a photoshop program.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Would be $6 well spent. (Note to self: Carry $6 35mm camera next time driving through Chatham. :) Second note to self: Stop writing notes to self on ontariohighwaytrafficact.com. :shock: )
hwybear wrote:
We are able to enter photos taken on those $6 35mm film cameras, provided we have the orginals plus another copy of all photos should defence inquire. The other way was poloroid, photo copy the pictures and bring the orginals to court.
Would be $6 well spent. (Note to self: Carry $6 35mm camera next time driving through Chatham. Second note to self: Stop writing notes to self on ontariohighwaytrafficact.com. )
I am bit confused now. I have the photos of the location taken from different angles by a professional photographer named Bill Knudsen (link= ://buytelescopes.com/imagegallery.aspx?c=16193) but by no means there is a date and time stamp on it. He shoot them and copied over to his hard disk and gave it to me. Can I make a CD of it as a raw data? Disclosure is yet to be received.
I am bit confused now. I have the photos of the location taken from different angles by a professional photographer named Bill Knudsen (link= ://buytelescopes.com/imagegallery.aspx?c=16193) but by no means there is a date and time stamp on it. He shoot them and copied over to his hard disk and gave it to me. Can I make a CD of it as a raw data? Disclosure is yet to be received.
Well, today was my date and I got adjournment for not providing me a disclosure. So it is now set to November10. However, the prosecutor and cop gave me a copy of Cop's notes and said that he gave me a disclosure. It is just few lines about the incident. Is it called a disclosure? Shouldn't I get something more in more details? Very perplexed what to do?
Well, today was my date and I got adjournment for not providing me a disclosure. So it is now set to November10. However, the prosecutor and cop gave me a copy of Cop's notes and said that he gave me a disclosure. It is just few lines about the incident. Is it called a disclosure? Shouldn't I get something more in more details?
So heres my case, does it have any validity? Im argueing that the officer did not have a justified view of where and if my car stopped or not, which it did.
This is the officers view of the stop sign i "disobeyed"
Another possible viewpoint, just so i can say that he cant see regardless
As you can see he cannot see the line where i must stop
As close are possible (which he wasnt) to the intersection,…
I need some help to settle a "Right of Way" argument. I know this question has probably been asked a thousand times before, but after doing a search, I was unable to find a posting on the forum, or the specific section in the OHTA relating to it.
Scenario:
Two cars approach an intersection where the east and westbound directions are controlled by stop signs, and the north and southbound…
I was pulled over for doing 123 in an 80 zone on highway 7 near Peterborough. The officer reduced it to 109 in an 80. It was HIGHLY unlikely that I was going 109, let alone 123, so for the merit of it I am taking this to court. Court case mid January.
Please could you help me to decipher the officer's notes. Are there any errors in the notes or on the ticket that you can see?
Ive already done searches, read the act as best i can but still haven't read a complete answer. Where in the HTA does it state that the front license plate must be attached to the front bumper? I have it on the passenger sun visor (if ppl remember the old temp permits that taped to the pass side of windshield) i figured that this spot would be the same. However now they have got rid of…
Was pulled over earlier today for going 95km/h in posted 60km/h, 2nd offense (same cop that pulled me over the first time >.<) ticket of $265. going down dougall toward cabana where it goes from the 80 to 60 zone (yes was over slightly coming in and kept speed)
Just wondering what the best way to handle this? (location: windsor ontario)
I am a bartender and last saturday night while I was working someone backed into my car (2000 Acura Integra) in the prking lot. One of the cooks in the kitchen ran to tell me my car alarm is going off. Immediately I ran outside to discover my driver side mirror smashed on the ground and my driver door dented. There was nobody around to claim responsibility. I had already begun to suspect one…
Scenario regarding speeding charge - if a charge is not reduced at all at roadside, i.e. the charge, for example is "speeding 75 km/h in a 60 km/h zone contrary to s. 128," should that not mean the prosecution needs to prove that you are guilty of what you are being charged with, and not, simply, of speeding generally? I understand that if they prove a charge of even 61 km/h in a 60 km/h, they…
In a nutshell, in York Region, ran a stale yellow, cop was on a 407 off ramp and tickets me for red light. 2 week old pink slip, I forgot I put the new behind the expired one so I got a ticket for that as well.
Had the first court date adjourned because I did not receive disclosure. I used the Ticketcombat template and faxed it over, they told me I never left a phone number. No surprise there, I…
Was stopped in an OPP speed trap on eastbound QEW near Hamilton at 1:30 AM last week (Apr 25th). Officer said I was doing 131 km/h based on radar gun but I thought I was around 120 km/h (I let off the gas and looked at my speedo when I saw the 2 cars on the shoulder). It was a dark stretch and it was not busy but there were a few other cars on the highway. I asked to see the reading but they said…
1) Discovery info includes 3 pages of Genesis radar manual. Officer's notes show he used "Atlantic Laser" to measure speed. Didn't show model # (only s/n). The Genesis was used earlier on in the day, but not for my case. Can I grill him on this or is it simply a clerk's error in sending me the wrong manual?
I got a ticket for an expired licence sticker. The next day I went to the Ministry office to renew my sticker. I thought that I HAD to pay any outstanding tickets BEFORE I was eligible to renew my sticker. The lady at the desk informed me that I had an outstanding balance and 407 bill that I had a to pay and I told her that I was aware of that. I thought everything was cleared.
Last week I was driving though downtown and because of the slippery / wet conditions could not stop when the light was turning yellow to red and slid in to the intersection. I was hit by another car (near the headlamp). None of us were injured, there was significat damge to the cars. The air bags did not deploy.
I was given a ticket that reads : Red Light - fail to stop - H.T.A sect 144 (18) Fine…
I was just wondering if there was any text in the HTA that suggests that when driving on a highway with three lanes going in each direction, drivers should generally always be in the rightmost lane unless they are passing.
At first, I thought 154(b) was what I was looking for, but now I'm not so sure?
"Officials in West Vancouver, Canada apparently aren't satisfied with the driver-slowing properties of traditional speed bumps. Yesterday, the town unveiled a new way to entice motorists to ease off the gas pedal in the vicinity of the ÃÂcole Pauline Johnson Elementary School: A 2-D image of a child playing, creating the illusion that…
Does anybody know how you can check the status of your Demerit Points and how many you have collected over the last two years?
I just received a ticket as I was travelling through Barrie and am debating whether or not to fight it. My decision will be based on whether or not an infraction I received a year ago came with Demerit Points.
I have a question I would like to ask concerning turning right on a red light.
I was approaching on the right turn only lane to the traffic light which turned from amber to red. As soon as the red light came on, there were advance green left turn arrow for the intersection I was for the cars that were traveling right to left and left to right of me. Since there was a lot of traffic from where I…
So I got pulled over for speeding and following too close, on HWY 11 north of Barrie. The airplane caught me! I will fight this as I have fought ALL my tickets and won EVERY ONE of them (one per year... man I need to drive slower). So any thoughts out there on how to fight this one? Does the Crown have to bring the 2 officers in the plane, plus the one in the cruises to court? If 1 in 3 doesn't…
I am new to this forum and before making this post I did some digging and was unable to find anything on this method of officer note taking.
A little back ground of my case:
charged with 25km/h over the posted limit.
After numerous disclosure requests, finally received a detailed disclosure including several pages of the lidar manual and typed officer notes describing the events of my…
My wife was just pulled over for running a yellow light and instead was ticketed for an expired drivers licence. The license expired on her birthdate 4 months ago and she didn;t recieve a renewal. $325 !!!!!!
Hope someone can help. She was ticketed under HTA 32 (1) with the offense shown as
"Drive Motor Vehicle no license"
Can anyone tell me if this is worth the effort to get a reduction in the…
So I got pulled over for supposedly for running a stop sign. The problem is that I did a complete stop, waited a split second and started again. And yes I did stop behind the white line.
He took my information and went back to his car to write me up a ticket, came back and gave me my fine and explained to me the process. He gave me a reduced fine (65$ and ne points).
Someone has an accident in a car worth very little on highway 401 but the car is not drivable (but not in terrible shape), there is a police report filed right away in which no other cars were involved, however the car did strike a guardrail. Is it possible to handle this without involving insurance? Or is a forgone conclusion insurance will be notified by the police?
I made a minor mistake on my disclosure request - I put a "Request Date" of September 10, 2014 instead of 2015. The rest of the form is correct including offense date, fax date, trial date.
Will this affect my disclosure? Do I need to clear it up?
Also, I noticed the Ticket Combat disclosure form has a lot more information than what was posted in on this site. Is it OK to send a second…
Actually you gather the demerits until you get 9 in a period of 2 years and that wins you an interview in which you justify why you should keep your licence. That has nothing to do with your insurance rates.
That way when you're questioning the officer, you can show with undeniable photographic evidence, in addition to the diagram that you already have, that no U-turn was made; therefore, you didn't disobey a sign. (Your Worship, I would like to submit these photographs that I took myself on this date of various drivers performing the same turn that I was ticketed for by Constable So-and-So. As you can see, your Worship, at no point did this manoeuvre involve making a U-turn.) It just augments what TC suggested.
Second note to self: Stop writing notes to self on ontariohighwaytrafficact.com. 
