OHTA.ca

Ontario. obtained disclosure in Sept 2013, on summons of not having car insurance. ( i had insurance, 4 officers involved of which 2 i talked with 1 of the others issued summons ??) Prosecutor tells me to get "Certified Letter" from my auto insurer regading date, time, car etc. Call up insurer explain what i need, rep says no problem, emails to me a standard Automobile Claims Experience, (ive told insurance rep exactly what is needed re: car make, model, date, time VIN.., he attaches additional page) Nothing signed, no insurer rep name, total garbage. Second call days later to insurer, talk to someone higher up, explain I need Certified Letter. Insurance person mails me letter, has all details requested, person name, dept, signature, phone #car info, date, time. I give letter to police officer named in disclodure (per prosecutor instruction "to investigate letter"), officer says to obtain "Certified Letter" but cannot elaborate on what is contained, meant by Certified Letter. I call up and talk to local prosecutor, he has no clue what a Certified Letter (car insurance) is., says to bring original, or photo copy of signed insurer letter to Oct 28/13 court, discuss beforehand and ??? . ( My follow up to insurer has yet to be replied., not holding my breath on them ) So my question, request to the Board., Does anyone know exactly what is contained, meant by a "Certified Letter" from car insurer.

I'm not sure what the police are after, unless maybe they want a notarized letter from the insurer. Either way that is odd. I would forget about dealing with the police on this one, bring the letter you've got to your court date and talk to the prosecutor. From what the prosecutor told you it sounds as if they will likely be willing to drop the no insurance charge if you bring them the signed letter from your insurance company stating that you had insurance coverage at the time the summons was issued.

thanks for inference, suggestion., however again ... police has to reply to prosecutir in Certified Letter

Why are you doing the prosecution's job? If you have proof that you had insurance, then just let the PROSECUTOR/POLICE work it out. Don't waste too much time on this. Show up in court; give your proof to the prosecutor and if they don't drop the charge, then request a trial. They'll quickly fix the issue themselves. If not, the JP/Judge will acquit you. Stop worrying about this if you've got the proof.

Insurance charge is reverse onus. Meaning they have to prove they had insurance.

The reason something needs to be certified is people will print out all kinds of letters on their home computer and bring it in. (I have seen this happen).

Being it is a 5k fine you want to make sure you have what the courts will accept. If not you could walk out with a 5k fine. It is pretty simple. I testify that I stopped and believed that the driver who was the owner was not insured and could not produce proof. That is all that is needed for a conviction. The driver then has to provide the proof of insurance and it has to be in a form that they courts will accept.

Like others have said find out from the prosecutor what they require and bring it. I will never take proof as once I lay the charge it is the prosecutors responsibility to deal with it not mine.

OPS