OHTA.ca

Received Disclosure

Police has NO written notes- Only has In Car Camera (copy of video )

Is the case over since Police has no written notes?

Police also provide a detail typed description based on the video

Is police allow to read the typed description?

Should I object to police reading or referring to the typed description?

Can I ask question about the video before Court shows it?

The Court is New Market- How do I show my dash cam video?

Should I bring a copy of the DVD or memory stick? Should I bring my own computer too?

Thanks

What is the charge (wording and section number)?

What is different from your dashcam video and their video?

My guess is that you received a new e-ticket (printed ticket versus hand written) where the officer typed their notes at the time of the offence instead of writing them out by hand.

If that's the case, they're considered the same as hand written notes in Court and the officer will be allowed to use them on the stand. E-notes should have a date and time stamp showing when they were made, which should be around the time of the offence.

jsherk wrote:What is the charge (wording and section number)?

What is different from your dashcam video and their video?

136(1)a

Police video was from a different angle

My video showed there was a cement truck blocking the stop sign and I was not able to see the stop sign

until I was less than 60 metres from the intersection

Police mentioned the markings/ stop line on the ground 4 times in the type narrative-

Police video did not show any markings/stop line

My video shows there were NO markings or stop line.

Prosecution office confirmed that there are "No written notes"

Stanton wrote:My guess is that you received a new e-ticket (printed ticket versus hand written) where the officer typed their notes at the time of the offence instead of writing them out by hand.

If that's the case, they're considered the same as hand written notes in Court and the officer will be allowed to use them on the stand. E-notes should have a date and time stamp showing when they were made, which should be around the time of the offence.

News to me

The time stamped was about 2 minues after Police returned to the cruiser and he returned to me within 2 minutes after the time stamped

Can he types over 250 words within that time frame while checking my licence and other things?

The DVD provided also shown that certain files were created after I requested disclosure- 5 months after the ticket

So did you drive right on thru the stop sign without even slowing down because you did not see it, or did you slow down and almost stop but roll thru?

The reason I ask is that if you did not stop because you did not see it then the cement truck thing would be good and you need to find the law/regulation about the 60metres. However if you slowed down and almost stopped but rolled thru you will have a hard time convincing the JP that you did not see the sign because of the obstruction.

Can you scan and post the ticket and notes you have (with personal/officer info blanked out)?

Thanks

jsherk wrote:So did you drive right on thru the stop sign without even slowing down because you did not see it, or did you slow down and almost stop but roll thru?

The reason I ask is that if you did not stop because you did not see it then the cement truck thing would be good and you need to find the law/regulation about the 60metres. However if you slowed down and almost stopped but rolled thru you will have a hard time convincing the JP that you did not see the sign because of the obstruction.

Can you scan and post the ticket and notes you have (with personal/officer info blanked out)?

Thanks

The cement truck was rolling and there was an orange plastic cone placed near the driver side.

I was watching out if the driver or any workers may be dashing out to the road

In fact, there were 4 construction workers. 3 on the sidewalk and one was on the road just in front of the cement truck.

The 60 metres rule is HTA45

I checked with City of Markham- there are no by-laws for the stop sign. contrary to HTA 137

The stop signs were built by the developer contrary to HTA 46

There was a stop sign on the left which is about 3 metres south of the All Ways Stop on the right. HTA 615(7) sign must be on right side

The two sign are not the same and do not align. The All Way stop sign on the right was about 2 metres

passed the south end of the intersection.

Police narrative text referred to the stop line / road markings at least 4 times. However, my video showed there are no markings nor stop line.

The officers remarks about the lines that are not there may help you a little, but in the end the only part that matters is if the officer says you did not stop.

If there is no by-law for the stop sign though, then you need to make sure you bring that up at the trial. If you can even get a response from somebody in the municipality saying that there is no bylaw for stop signs there, then you should be able to win it. NOTE: +1 on good research for finding no bylaw and the other related regulations.

But even if you win the stop sign charge because of no bylaw, I do not think you can beat the fail to provide insurance charge. That one is another tough one to beat.

jsherk wrote:The officers remarks about the lines that are not there may help you a little, but in the end the only part that matters is if the officer says you did not stop.

If there is no by-law for the stop sign though, then you need to make sure you bring that up at the trial. If you can even get a response from somebody in the municipality saying that there is no bylaw for stop signs there, then you should be able to win it. NOTE: +1 on good research for finding no bylaw and the other related regulations.

But even if you win the stop sign charge because of no bylaw, I do not think you can beat the fail to provide insurance charge. That one is another tough one to beat.

Went to Court today

Prosecutor spoke to me during recess time

Prosecutor was telling me some of the documents and disclosure are not proper.

Prosecutor said I must have someone helped me with these disclosures etc. I should have someoe who knows law to

represent me... blar blar for over 10 mins. Try to intimate me to accept something

I provided 2 emails from Markham City engineering dept and the email was cc to City Councillor and the Mayor

It confirmed that there are no by-laws at that intersection (HTA 137) and the stop signs were erected by the Developer (HTA 46)

Prosecutor said emails are not admissible. I have to have the writer to testify in Court. That is Bullshit. Under The Canada Evidence Act, Emails with

company email address are considered "self-authenticating trade inscriptions for purpose of federal evidence

I mentioned HTA 615(7) regarding the stop sign on the left-- Prosecutor said Court do not care about whether the stop is erected in accordance with HTA 615(7)

I also point out the stop line was mentioned more than 4 times on police narrative text but his video and my video showed there is no line on the ground

There is an All Way stop which was 2 metres into the intersection and a Stop sign on the left (HTA 615(7) both are not aligned.

I have less than 60 metres to response my view of the stop sign was because cement tryck blocked my view.

Prosecutor said whether there are line or not whether I can see the stop sign before 60 metres are not relevant.

I told her HTA 45 -60 metres rule. and 136(1)a -stop at line-no line. or before entering intersection- but the All Way stop was 2 metres into the intersection- Where should I stop?

I insisted to go to trial.

It was 11:40 am. Prosecutor told the judge that there are issues unresolved. There are not enough time to proceed with the trial. The judge said there are enough time. Prosecutor recommend to reschedule to a later date. I told the judge I am ready to proceed with the trial. Well, Prosecutor got the delay to Jan 2017.

Question: My ticket was late Feb 2016 and now rescheduled to mid Jan 2017- About 10 months. The delay was not my fault. I did not request any additional disclosure and I had provided all disclosure(my video) and other documents to the Prosecutor.

Can I file Form 4F and raise 11b Charter of Rights challenge?

Why do you think Prosecutor requested delay? There are 20 mins to noon and the judge initially said there are enough time.

Fail to obey stop sign was the only ticket I got.

Good job sticking up for yourself!

I would come back next time prepared to proceed again. And make sure you have copies of any of the HTA or regulations or Evidence Act that you want reference.

You could also call court house and tell them you need to meet with a Justice of the Peace to get a subponea for the person at Markham City that can testify to there being no by-law. Alternatively, you could ask them to give you an affadavit signed by notary that there is no bylaw.

You can certainly attempt an 11b argument, however you need to have official transcripts of all previous appearances, which costs $$$. And I think you might be borderline on the timeline anyways.

Op, the arguments you're raising---while creative, have very little legal basis to assist you. Here's why:

1) By-law not required for stop sign----put simply, there is no obligation that a municipality MUST pass a by-law in order for a stop sign to be valid. All the provisions you've referred to are 'permissive' in nature where the legislation says "may" not "shall". If you read the Signs regulation, some signs DO require a by-law in order be valid; a stop sign is not one of them. Section 137(a) is again discretionary---besides, its all "In addition to stop signs required at intersections on through highways". So, don't waste your time on that argument. No by-law is needed.

2) You must stop even when there are no markings----re-read section 136. If there are no marked stop lines, then you must stop before the nearest crosswalk and if that doesn't exist either then you must stop immediately before entering the intersection. So, again, while you can argue with the officer over whether the markings are there or not, the question is still whether you stopped before entering the intersection.

3) Impaired Visibility not a defence---its seems as if the stop sign WAS erected on the right side; you simply didn't see it because of the truck. That's not a defence. The sign itself is therefore according to the requirements. The onus is on YOU as you approach the intersection, especially when there were pedestrians around to use caution and LOOK for the sign before going through the intersection. You could see it from the left, so reasonably, you should have stopped anyway---just as a matter of precaution and safety. You don't proceed through an intersection without satisfying yourself that a stop sign exists or doesn't. The onus is on YOU to stop---especially if you don't know whether there is a sign or not. To proceed otherwise, is extremely unsafe. Just because YOU couldn't see it doesn't excuse the fact you went thru it. That's why stop sign offences are absolute liability. We don't want people who don't exercise caution to be excused for THEIR mistakes. Otherwise, it would be a free-for-all in going through stop signs.

So, given the arguments you've been raising thus far, I think you'll likely be out-played in court by an experienced prosecutor. Perhaps that's why they wanted the adjournment----just to craft their arguments more succinctly. So, tread lightly. You seem to be trying to throw anything you can except answer the real question of whether you truly DID stop or not. That's really all that matters.

As for the 11b argument, its simply too early for that. You have less than a 1% chance of winning that argument. The case law (especially new SCC decision) is simply against you on that one.

Regardless, good luck with your case.

2) You must stop even when there are no markings----re-read section 136. If there are no marked stop lines, then you must stop before the nearest crosswalk and if that doesn't exist either then you must stop immediately before entering the intersection. So, again, while you can argue with the officer over whether the markings are there or not, the question is still whether you stopped before entering the intersection.

The All Way Stop on the right was 2 metres north of the north edge of the traffic island, and already in the intersection.

The stop sign on the left (not All Ways Stop) was about .75 metres south of the intersection.

The two different stop signs (one All Ways Stop on the right and stop sign on the left) do not align. They are about 9 to 10 feet between them

There are no stop line on the ground. If I follow the left stop sign, then I have to stop just before I enter the intersection.

If I follow the right All Way Stop sign, I have to stop when I am already inside the intersection. Also, I have to make sure it is my turn to proceed.

The short distance (less than 60 metres) to react and without the stop line and the two confusing stop sign

3) Impaired Visibility not a defence---its seems as if the stop sign WAS erected on the right side; you simply didn't see it because of the truck. That's not a defence. The sign itself is therefore according to the requirements. The onus is on YOU as you approach the intersection, especially when there were pedestrians around to use caution and LOOK for the sign before going through the intersection. You could see it from the left, so reasonably, you should have stopped anyway---just as a matter of precaution and safety. You don't proceed through an intersection without satisfying yourself that a stop sign exists or doesn't. The onus is on YOU to stop---especially if you don't know whether there is a sign or not. To proceed otherwise, is extremely unsafe. Just because YOU couldn't see it doesn't excuse the fact you went thru it. That's why stop sign offences are absolute liability. We don't want people who don't exercise caution to be excused for THEIR mistakes. Otherwise, it would be a free-for-all in going through stop signs.

My dash cam video showed that the Stop sign on the right was not visible until my van was just behind the cement truck.

The stop sign on the left was partially blocked by a no left turn sign a few feet directly in front of it.

Police did not have hand written notes. He only has a narrative text which I think he prepared them after watching his video.

There are a lot of inconsistancy in his narrative text and he said there is stop line 4 times but it was not there on his video and my video.

If what you say is true, then why bother fighting any traffic ticket ?

The prosecutor was trying pressure me to accept a plea bargin. I did buy it and I was surprised that she want to rescheduled and ask for ONE hour.

I don't care if I win or not as long as I spoke my mind. But I don't know why she want to waste so much time on me.

My personal opinion is that you need to use the shotgun approach when fighting a ticket, because if you are relying on only one thing, then there is a good chance that they will have answer and you are done. With the shotgun approach, they need an answer for each point you bring up AND it gives a greater chance for the JP to make a mistake AND it gives you more ammunition for an appeal if you lose at trial.

Op, you still haven't raised any valid legal basis for a defense. Will your dashcam video show you stopping? If not, then it will only prove the absolute liability offense that you did NOT stop. There's no due diligence defense available on a fail to stop at a stop sign charge.

Besides, your argument about the sign would only be relevant in a civil case if liability was being apportioned amongst parties. You could then argue that the city's poor sign contributed to the damages. But, for the traffic offense, the law is clear. You must stop BEFORE entering the intersection. It doesn't say you have to stop where the stop sign is located. So, you approached an intersection and were facing a stop sign but didn't stop, right? If that can be proven then the case is done. The video will likely prove that. Your dash cam video will just corroborate that.

As for your notes argument, they don't have to be handwritten. Officers type notes as well, especially with the new e-tickets. Clearly, they have to type or write their notes after the incident has occurred. I doubt you will be able to prove that the officer only made their notes after viewing the video. It seems to me like you are just speculating.

Regardless, kudos to you for trying to fight this ticket. However, the problem with the shotgun approach to legal advocacy is that you lose persuasiveness and confuse the trier so that he/she won't focus in on the grounds that do have merit. The best trial lawyers will argue one or two points that they know will succeed. It is the inexperienced and/or insecure advocate who feels the need to raise everything and hope something sticks. Confidence is very persuasive.

highwaystar wrote:Op, you still haven't raised any valid legal basis for a defense. Will your dashcam video show you stopping? If not, then it will only prove the absolute liability offense that you did NOT stop. There's no due diligence defense available on a fail to stop at a stop sign charge.

Besides, your argument about the sign would only be relevant in a civil case if liability was being apportioned amongst parties. You could then argue that the city's poor sign contributed to the damages. But, for the traffic offense, the law is clear. You must stop BEFORE entering the intersection. It doesn't say you have to stop where the stop sign is located. So, you approached an intersection and were facing a stop sign but didn't stop, right? If that can be proven then the case is done. The video will likely prove that. Your dash cam video will just corroborate that.

As for your notes argument, they don't have to be handwritten. Officers type notes as well, especially with the new e-tickets. Clearly, they have to type or write their notes after the incident has occurred. I doubt you will be able to prove that the officer only made their notes after viewing the video. It seems to me like you are just speculating.

Regardless, kudos to you for trying to fight this ticket. However, the problem with the shotgun approach to legal advocacy is that you lose persuasiveness and confuse the trier so that he/she won't focus in on the grounds that do have merit. The best trial lawyers will argue one or two points that they know will succeed. It is the inexperienced and/or insecure advocate who feels the need to raise everything and hope something sticks. Confidence is very persuasive.

Of course I didn't stop otherwise I won't be asking for help here.

I am 90% sure that the police narrative text was prepared after he saw the video 5 months after the date of ticket.

I will cross examine every line he put down on the narrative text.

I will challenge whether he has indepedent recollection of what happened that day.

Police put down something that are not visible in the video and some contradiction .

My main concern is if police did not prepare any notes on that day, can the police use the narrative in court?

I will not allow him to use the narrative if I can and then challenge his memory.