OHTA.ca

Hi all. Has anyone here successfully used an 11b argument to dismiss a red light camera ticket?

My offence was in late 2014. I requested an "early resolution" meeting with the prosecutor. It took place about 7 months after the offence (no delay on my part -- they must be backed up). At the meeting, I decided to go to trial and it is now scheduled for just over a year from the offence date.

Does this sound like an acceptable 11b argument? Or can they argue that I delayed the trial by requesting an early resolution meeting?

There is some debate that the early resolution process as being designated as "neutral intake period" and that the 11b clock doesn't start until you actually request a trial. The constitution states the trial occur "within a reasonable time" (delays caused by you do not count). What you want to concentrate on is avoiding having the entire 7 months designated as "neutral intake period". IMO the early resolution process taking 7 months is abusive unless they made it clear that you could expect it to take that long. If courts hold ERM's as neutral I guess the question is "How long is too long?". Perhaps with the right argument you will get a sympathetic JP. Aside from a fine reduction, you have nothing to lose by arguing an 11b.

What prejudice have you suffered because of the delay? After all, the evidence is merely photographic (doesn't require viva voce evidence) and there are no insurance or demerit consequences.

I actually think it will be VERY difficult to win an 11b argument on such an offence because you won't be able to justify any meaningful 'prejudicial' effect from the delay without the prosecutors having a good counter-argument.

If you read the actual case law, 11b cases require more than just looking at the calendar and counting months. The last part of the test requires passing the 'prejudice' test.

Good luck though!