OHTA.ca

I recently received a Red Light System Offence Notice. I picked the option to see a prosecutor for early resolution and put it in the mail today. I have already started researching how to combat this ticket and hoping for some insight here.

I was driving in an area not well known to me. I was looking for the street I had to turn onto (would be a left turn) but was unsure how far I needed to go. I do not remember "running" a red light but I do remember being somewhat in distress as I was starting to worry I had missed my turn. So most likely I was coming up to the light and was looking for the street sign for my turn. Most street signs are still very small and hard to make out in the large intersections of Toronto as well some are poorly posted or not there at all. I can only assume I had been looking for the sign and not fully noticing the lights got to the stop line but failed to stop as I wouldn't have had enough time because of being distracted by looking for my sign. In which case it was the safest option to continue through the red. It was .5 sec red before I was in the intersection.

Also I do not remember seeing the camera's or the sign's showing that camera's were installed. There is a red SUV turning right in the picture which means it was most likely blocking the sign as I came up to the intersection. These signs are also small and white so they blend into everything and are close enough to the intersection as to give you a slip second decision to stop or continue based on getting a ticket aswell as all the other variables that take time to process.

I want to ask for full disclosure as well as a bunch of other things like:

Records of the officer receiving training for the specific red light camera system that was used. Records of maintenance of said red light camera system.

Records of malfunctions of similar red light camera's

Any statistics that the Toronto police have regarding accidents at this or other intersections before and after red light camera's installed and what the actual infractions were.

etc... etc.

Can I ask for such things? Will they give them to me?

Secondly, I have an issue with paying a "victim surcharge fee". There is no victim there is no chance of a victim and I know for a fact the money does not go to the victims and the process for victims to receive such funds is so difficult for actual victims that many never get help from the money collected on their behalf.

Everywhere I have read about VSF's is that they are specifically for criminals. As the offence and every other HTA offence is not a criminal act then I believe the VSF is not enforceable as they are not criminalizing me. If I understand correctly my vehicle is being fined and not my person.

Below is from the city of Toronto website. It states vehicles are only photographed after they enter the intersection. So how do they have a picture of me behind the stop line before entering? This is contrary to what the website claims. I think that in it self might get the case thrown out? Seems like entrapment if they took a picture before I entered when they state they take the picture after I enter.

Q Do the cameras photograph every vehicle passing through an intersection?

A The cameras are set so that only those vehicles that enter an intersection after the light has turned red are photographed. Vehicles that enter on yellow and are within the intersection when the light changes to red are not photographed. The program is intended to photograph vehicles that enter an intersection after the signal has turned red.

An help/ clarification would be great

Fishheadman wrote:I was driving in an area not well known to me. I was looking for the street I had to turn onto (would be a left turn) but was unsure how far I needed to go. I do not remember "running" a red light but I do remember being somewhat in distress as I was starting to worry I had missed my turn. So most likely I was coming up to the light and was looking for the street sign for my turn. Most street signs are still very small and hard to make out in the large intersections of Toronto as well some are poorly posted or not there at all. I can only assume I had been looking for the sign and not fully noticing the lights got to the stop line but failed to stop as I wouldn't have had enough time because of being distracted by looking for my sign. In which case it was the safest option to continue through the red. It was .5 sec red before I was in the intersection.

It's an absolute liability offense. Either you did, or you didn't. "I did it because..." is not a defense.

Fishheadman wrote:

Also I do not remember seeing the camera's or the sign's showing that camera's were installed. There is a red SUV turning right in the picture which means it was most likely blocking the sign as I came up to the intersection. These signs are also small and white so they blend into everything and are close enough to the intersection as to give you a slip second decision to stop or continue based on getting a ticket aswell as all the other variables that take time to process.

I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. There's no regulations for a red light camera sign. They are not telling you to do anything. You don't have to obey them. They are not required to be visible as they require no action.

Fishheadman wrote:I want to ask for full disclosure as well as a bunch of other things like:

Records of the officer receiving training for the specific red light camera system that was used. Records of maintenance of said red light camera system.

Records of malfunctions of similar red light camera's

Any statistics that the Toronto police have regarding accidents at this or other intersections before and after red light camera's installed and what the actual infractions were.

etc... etc.

Can I ask for such things? Will they give them to me?

There isn't a little man inside those boxes. I believe someone reviews the photos to see if they are legitimate and everything is proper and visible (eg. Your plate, the line, the traffic light). That's about it.

They are not going to provide you with statistics regarding that intersection before and after that camera was installed. It has nothing to do with your case. Whether red light cameras make the world safer isn't the debate.

Fishheadman wrote:

Secondly, I have an issue with paying a "victim surcharge fee". There is no victim there is no chance of a victim and I know for a fact the money does not go to the victims and the process for victims to receive such funds is so difficult for actual victims that many never get help from the money collected on their behalf.

Everywhere I have read about VSF's is that they are specifically for criminals. As the offence and every other HTA offence is not a criminal act then I believe the VSF is not enforceable as they are not criminalizing me. If I understand correctly my vehicle is being fined and not my person.

Consider a victim surcharge a tax. The province has decided your charge can be taxed and they're going to use that tax to fund whatever they fund. Whether there is a victim or not doesn't matter. I bought a garden hose at Canadian Tire and I was taxed. Part of that tax went to Federal Defense. What does my garden hose have to do with Stealth Fighter Jets?

Fishheadman wrote:Below is from the city of Toronto website. It states vehicles are only photographed after they enter the intersection. So how do they have a picture of me behind the stop line before entering? This is contrary to what the website claims. I think that in it self might get the case thrown out? Seems like entrapment if they took a picture before I entered when they state they take the picture after I enter.

Red light cameras don't take a picture of every vehicle before they enter an intersection. Do you see cameras taking pictures of everyone as they slow down for the red? The answer is no. They have sensors that will take pictures based on criteria. If you enter the photo zone behind the line at a certain speed (eg 20km) it will take your picture as there's no way you'll be able to stop in time behind the line.

I read on this site that I can send a picture of my RED LIGHT CAMERA TICKET so you can check if its valid. How do I do that?

also I heard that there is new legistration that red light camera tickets can only be reduced from $325 to $200 is this true

At the time of the offence I had a leg spasm lost use of my right foot, doctor says I have 95% nerve damage is this a defence or will they want me to give up my licence if I use temporary nerve damage.

To the OP, read Bend's comments. They are bang on. Your arguments are either irrelevant or quite flaky-----they won't hold up. You either ran the red or you didn't. As for the victim fine surcharge argument, it would certainly make for an entertaining day in court for the JP and Prosecutor. Its the law and is applicable to you and everyone else---regardless of what you feel is appropriate or not. Get ready for a lot of chuckles.

As for the second poster regarding his spastic legs-----if you plan on using that as a defense, get ready to have your licence suspended. You will likely be declared medically unfit to drive----after all, you could have a spasm at any time and could kill someone. That's why many epileptics can't drive. So, I suggest you tread VERY lightly with that argument. You'll be amazed how quickly they'll remove your licence. And then, it will take several months and cost you hundreds of dollars to get it reinstated---they will likely make you attend a medical driving assessment----payment of course which will be courtesy of you!!!! Look it up---the process is quite painful and costly. So, if I were you, I'd look for another defense---quickly and not bring up that injury.

I have gotten a "Red Light" ticket as well (york region) what I am interested in is your comments re: (Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Yan, 2004 CanLII 32076 (ON C.A.)) "the photograph "must" display the date, time and location of the offence either within the photograph itself or superimposed on it."

My ticket does not show a location or have any visible road signs. But it does have a code "3005" which the regs say is the municipality. Is the Municipality acceptable as far as location goes? Making the picture admissible?

Thanks