Need help/advice going to court next week to fight a ticket

[simplylgg]

Hi all,
I got a parking ticket last April in Toronto (parked in 3M radius of the hydro). I decided to fight and now have a court date next week. Searching through these pages I took the advice and asked for the disclosure and received that today. There is nothing more than what was written in the ticket in that letter they provided me as a disclosure. No photo or anything like that provided.
Anyways, I am not stupid to park in front of the hydro knowingly, but it is very subjective call if the curb is not painted properly. So you could be potentially or in the eye of the officer few inches closer than that you are supposed to be. Anyways, I think it will be officer's word against me in the court and perhaps judge will rule against me.

Anyways, I wonder what experts RFD folks suggest:
1. Plea guilty with explanation and try to ask for reduced penalty
2. Plea no guilty since prosecutor does not have any photo or an overwhelming evidence against me.

any advice is greatly appreciated.

[Whitedart]

Hi all,
I got a parking ticket last April in Toronto (parked in 3M radius of the hydro). I decided to fight and now have a court date next week. Searching through these pages I took the advice and asked for the disclosure and received that today. There is nothing more than what was written in the ticket in that letter they provided me as a disclosure. No photo or anything like that provided.
Anyways, I am not stupid to park in front of the hydro knowingly, but it is very subjective call if the curb is not painted properly. So you could be potentially or in the eye of the officer few inches closer than that you are supposed to be. Anyways, I think it will be officer's word against me in the court and perhaps judge will rule against me.

Anyways, I wonder what experts RFD folks suggest:
1. Plea guilty with explanation and try to ask for reduced penalty
2. Plea no guilty since prosecutor does not have any photo or an overwhelming evidence against me.

any advice is greatly appreciated.

Are you referring to a fire hydrant? If so, curbs are not painted in most parts of the GTA to indicate a distance to not park within. 3 m is about half the length of a car, so your bumper must have been about only a few feet away from the hydrant to get a ticket for that.

Further, why would you expect a photo for a parking violation?

[simplylgg]

Are you referring to a fire hydrant? If so, curbs are not painted in most parts of the GTA to indicate a distance to not park within. 3 m is about half the length of a car, so your bumper must have been about only a few feet away from the hydrant to get a ticket for that.

Further, why would you expect a photo for a parking violation?

Yes I was referring to fire hydrant. I heard some municipalities do take pictures of your car on such violation.
Anyways, what is your advice? I need help not blame please.

[ticketcombat]

Richmond Hill, Oakville and I believe Barrie take digital pictures of parking infractions. It's becoming more common now: cheap and easy convictions.

Reg 604 (http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/regu/1990r.604/20080821/whole.html) covers parking near hydrants on the King's Highway. It sounds like you violated a municipal parking by-law, not the regulation if you were parked on a municipal road.

If this is true, then they didn't provide you with a certified copy of the by-law covering parking which they should have done through disclosure.

If you used a good disclosure request (there's one on my site) you should have asked for witness will say statements. You can't prepare your defence if you don't know what the officer is going to say. Maybe he had a measuring tape. How did he determine the proper distance? All his evidence should have been disclosed to you in advance of the trial.

If you did the disclosure correctly, then you can make a s.7 Charter application for a stay based on improper disclosure.

Just watch out, they will try and hand you some "papers" when you show up at court. It will be the by-law. Don't accept it. Argue improper disclosure.

If this doesn't work, ask for an adjournment and a complete certified copy of the entire by-law. Make them work to convict you.

[simplylgg]

Richmond Hill, Oakville and I believe Barrie take digital pictures of parking infractions. It's becoming more common now: cheap and easy convictions.

Reg 604 (http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/regu/1990r.604/20080821/whole.html) covers parking near hydrants on the King's Highway. It sounds like you violated a municipal parking by-law, not the regulation if you were parked on a municipal road.

If this is true, then they didn't provide you with a certified copy of the by-law covering parking which they should have done through disclosure.

If you used a good disclosure request (there's one on my site) you should have asked for witness will say statements. You can't prepare your defence if you don't know what the officer is going to say. Maybe he had a measuring tape. How did he determine the proper distance? All his evidence should have been disclosed to you in advance of the trial.

If you did the disclosure correctly, then you can make a s.7 Charter application for a stay based on improper disclosure.

Just watch out, they will try and hand you some "papers" when you show up at court. It will be the by-law. Don't accept it. Argue improper disclosure.

If this doesn't work, ask for an adjournment and a complete certified copy of the entire by-law. Make them work to convict you.

I acutally had read your site which is a great site with lots of good info and based on your advice I asked for the disclosure and used a template you had provided. I will scan and attach what they have provided me as discosure.
BTW, the infraction occured on Yonge street south of Finch in front of Mel Lastman square.
Any other advice is greatly appreciated.

[simplylgg]

Attached are the scans of all 3 pages I received as a disclosure. Sorry if the scan are not as good.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/simplylgg/

Any other advice is greatly appreciated.

[stuntman]

Go to the spot you got the ticket and take a picture. I have never been to traffic court for a parking offence. Here are a list of questions:

-No painted curb?
-Where on the diagram is the pile of garbage in front of the hydrant?
-where on the diagram are other cars and obstructions?
-In the year 2008 it is not unreasonable for a digital picture to be taken. Why this low detail diagram?
-where you in the area?
-did the ticketer make their assessment by looking at the right angle (they probably did).

Even if you plead guilty use the faded curb thing...I dunno if those fines are ever reduced.

sm

[ticketcombat]

Attached are the scans of all 3 pages I received as a disclosure. Sorry if the scan are not as good.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/simplylgg/

Any other advice is greatly appreciated.
Great! You had to park on Yonge street which is the King's Highway and the longest highway in the world:lol:

I've never worked on a fire hydrant charge so I'm hoping I didn't miss a section of the HTA. I honestly can't find the section you violated under it so my assumption is that you violated a by-law, not the Act.

The good news is that this becomes a great example of how to fight even the simplest of tickets. (I'll try not to write a doctoral dissertation).


The Crown has the duty to provide disclosure. While they can delegate the task to the police, they cannot delegate the duty. The response was from the police but the obligation to disclose is the Crown's alone.


You requested disclosure to prepare your defence. The incomplete disclosure does not allow you to do that because
you don't know who the witness(es) are
you don't know what they are going to say
you don't know how they measured your vehicle from the hydrant



The next step is to file an application based on violations under two sections.


Under s7 for improper disclosure based on the above. If you used my disclosure request, you would have clearly asked for this and they clearly did not provide it to you. BUT they will rely on the information in court to convict you. They can't do that unless they provide it to you in advance. If you don't know what the evidence they are relying on is, you can't prepare your defence. This is a clear violation of s.7.


On top of that, the part of Yonge Street you were parked on is not covered under HTA Reg 604, Schedules 2 or 6 nor under Reg 949 of the POA. There must be a by-law or section that you violated.


The infraction code box says "PARK 3M OF FIRE HYDRANT" and the next box "contrary to" is blank. Contrary to what code or bylaw? How can you defend against a charge if you don't know what you violated?


This is a violation of s.11a of the Charter:you don't know what law you broke.

No one expects a charter application for a parking ticket. Probably no one expects a disclosure request for a parking ticket either. If you have several months before your trial, you may want to send another follow-up indicating you haven't received full disclosure and that you can't begin to answer to the charge without it. Otherwise file the charter application at least 15 days before the trial. At worst, you will get disclosure and another adjournment which will likely put you in 11b territory.

Step 4 of my site is really about using this one two punch of disclosure and stays to set up a great chance of winning BEFORE the trial. It amazes me why more people don't use these simple form letters and a fax machine to exponentially increase their chances of winning a no-win situation.

[chanman]

ticketcombat - you and your site have been a great source of info for me and others fighting tickets. Have you thought about adding a discussion forum to your own site?

And on a related note, any advice on fighting a red light camera ticket? I read the case that was on your site (a Waterloo one if I remember correctly) where it got through out since they didn't out a proper time/date stamp on the photo. They do that now though with photos from Toronto red light cameras.

[simplylgg]

Great! You had to park on Yonge street which is the King's Highway and the longest highway in the world:lol:

I've never worked on a fire hydrant charge so I'm hoping I didn't miss a section of the HTA. I honestly can't find the section you violated under it so my assumption is that you violated a by-law, not the Act.

The good news is that this becomes a great example of how to fight even the simplest of tickets. (I'll try not to write a doctoral dissertation).


The Crown has the duty to provide disclosure. While they can delegate the task to the police, they cannot delegate the duty. The response was from the police but the obligation to disclose is the Crown's alone.


You requested disclosure to prepare your defence. The incomplete disclosure does not allow you to do that because
you don't know who the witness(es) are
you don't know what they are going to say
you don't know how they measured your vehicle from the hydrant



The next step is to file an application based on violations under two sections.


Under s7 for improper disclosure based on the above. If you used my disclosure request, you would have clearly asked for this and they clearly did not provide it to you. BUT they will rely on the information in court to convict you. They can't do that unless they provide it to you in advance. If you don't know what the evidence they are relying on is, you can't prepare your defence. This is a clear violation of s.7.


On top of that, the part of Yonge Street you were parked on is not covered under HTA Reg 604, Schedules 2 or 6 nor under Reg 949 of the POA. There must be a by-law or section that you violated.


The infraction code box says "PARK 3M OF FIRE HYDRANT" and the next box "contrary to" is blank. Contrary to what code or bylaw? How can you defend against a charge if you don't know what you violated?


This is a violation of s.11a of the Charter:you don't know what law you broke.

No one expects a charter application for a parking ticket. Probably no one expects a disclosure request for a parking ticket either. If you have several months before your trial, you may want to send another follow-up indicating you haven't received full disclosure and that you can't begin to answer to the charge without it. Otherwise file the charter application at least 15 days before the trial. At worst, you will get disclosure and another adjournment which will likely put you in 11b territory.

Step 4 of my site is really about using this one two punch of disclosure and stays to set up a great chance of winning BEFORE the trial. It amazes me why more people don't use these simple form letters and a fax machine to exponentially increase their chances of winning a no-win situation.

Thanks dear "ticketcombat". I have also scanned the disclosure letter that I had faxed to the prosecutor office:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/simplylgg/

BTW, I picked up the info from the prosecutor office at 1530 Markham Rd.

I wish I had found your website a bit earlier :( and had left with more time. I am going to court on Tuesday Feb 17, which does not leave me any time to file a charter application. I guess I am going to court. The question that I have is with no time left how do I request to stay. Do I ask in the court from the prosecutor or the Judge?

Thanks,

[ticketcombat]

DOH! You even titled your post "going to court next week" and I forgot about that completely. I think you've got several approaches you can take.

First, I didn't spot this originally but if the scan of disclosure is the exact same as your ticket, then it looks like you've got a fatal error. The ticket does not state what you violated and that is an insufficient charge. I cover this on Step 5 of my site, how to make a motion to quash the ticket based on a fatal error.

Beware! The prosecutor might try to hand you some papers before court. DON'T ACCEPT THEM!!! They will be the by-law and then she'll claim you know what you violated.

When the justice comes in and it's your turn to go up, you have to insist that the ticket has a fatal error. Show you requested disclosure and they did not provide you with a certified copy of any by-law. You do not know what you violated. The Crown had more than enough opportunity to do so and to mention the bylaw but they didn't. You have prepared your defence based on their disclosure and this fatal error.

This should kill your ticket.

Second, if for some bizarre reason you lose the battle above then you can request an adjournment so that you can file a Charter application. The justice must grant you this. You will then have more than enough time to claim section 7 and 11a violations. I don't think you'll have to go this far. Your ticket should be dead.

[ticketcombat]

ticketcombat - you and your site have been a great source of info for me and others fighting tickets. Have you thought about adding a discussion forum to your own site?

Chanman, thanks for your kind comments. I really appreciate them. There are several discussion boards that I post to regularly, one in particular is devoted entirely to the Ontario Highway Traffic Act (OntarioHighwayTrafficAct.com). I think there are enough forums out there already that I don't need to add to it.


And on a related note, any advice on fighting a red light camera ticket? I read the case that was on your site (a Waterloo one if I remember correctly) where it got through out since they didn't out a proper time/date stamp on the photo. They do that now though with photos from Toronto red light cameras.
There are several threads on this site already offering a range of advice about what to do. I've just updated my site with specific instructions for seatbelt and stop sign violations. I am working on a draft for red light camera tickets coming soon.

That's not going to help you right now. So I will make two broad comments.

Comment 1
A red light camera ticket doesn't affect your insurance, demerit points or driving record. It looks like the average settlement is $95 or about 50% of the face value of the ticket. Fighting the ticket is a balance of reducing the fine AND not losing income every time you go to court and miss work. You have to decide what threshold works for you and at what point you would be prepared to plead guilty or negotiate further.

My site, (see Step 5 - sentencing) shows what to say to the justice (or Crown) during negotiations or sentencing: expression of remorse, acknowledging the community safety interest, likelihood of re-offending, etc... which will help with reducing the fine.

Comment 2
There are some that will fight the ticket to the bitter end on principle alone. My site gives tons of ways to do that especially with disclosure and stays.

The key ruling Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Yan, 2004 CanLII 32076 (http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2004/2004canlii32076/2004canlii32076.html) covers the issues.

There are several good lessons to be learned there. First the code on the ticket/photographs has to be correct according to regulation. It also has to be legible. I don't believe they are. This is your first disclosure request, asking for the information on the photograph and what it means.

Second, there are rules around compelling the summons of the officer. This must be exploited mercilessly. You must make them work for a conviction and pose a threat of creating a precedent that will affect all red light camera tickets. They don't want to bet the farm to convict you. The Crown also has a threshold where it would not be in their interest to pursue a conviction when the potential (precedent) cost becomes too high. You must strike fear in the prosecutor heart.

You will pay a heavy price to do this even if only in terms of multiple court appearances as you argue and whittle away at them. Is it worth it to fight a ticket that is equivalent to an expensive parking ticket?

That is something you will have to decide.

[simplylgg]

DOH! You even titled your post "going to court next week" and I forgot about that completely. I think you've got several approaches you can take.

First, I didn't spot this originally but if the scan of disclosure is the exact same as your ticket, then it looks like you've got a fatal error. The ticket does not state what you violated and that is an insufficient charge. I cover this on Step 5 of my site, how to make a motion to quash the ticket based on a fatal error.

Beware! The prosecutor might try to hand you some papers before court. DON'T ACCEPT THEM!!! They will be the by-law and then she'll claim you know what you violated.

When the justice comes in and it's your turn to go up, you have to insist that the ticket has a fatal error. Show you requested disclosure and they did not provide you with a certified copy of any by-law. You do not know what you violated. The Crown had more than enough opportunity to do so and to mention the bylaw but they didn't. You have prepared your defence based on their disclosure and this fatal error.

This should kill your ticket.

Second, if for some bizarre reason you lose the battle above then you can request an adjournment so that you can file a Charter application. The justice must grant you this. You will then have more than enough time to claim section 7 and 11a violations. I don't think you'll have to go this far. Your ticket should be dead.

Actually, the ticket has the following info on it:
You did commit the offence of: PARK - 3M OF FIRE HYDRANT contrary to the METROPOLITAN TORONTO BY-LAW #32-92; SEC 21(B)

I am not sure if I still can use the "Fatal Error" argument as you suggeted above, but can I still use insufficient disclosure approach?

Thanks for all your help ticketcombat.

[ticketcombat]

Then no you don't have a fatal error if the original ticket has info the scan doesn't.

The insufficient disclosure argument will have to do. But since you haven't filed your Charter application, you are in a weaker position. The Crown has a duty to disclose, including the by-law, measurement process, will say statement, etc... They failed to do this. You can't proceed to trial. No way, no how!

You have to also emphasize that at 11 months for a relatively minor ticket, you are already in 11b territory for unreasonable delay. An adjournment to allow for disclosure would put you over the top. In affect, if the justice grants an adjournment, you are just going to be back arguing 11b. Let's save taking up valuable court time and just grant the stay now.

To support this argument, print three copies of the the following case and hand one to the prosecutor: R. v. Rowan, 2004 ONCJ 153 (CanLII) (http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2004/2004oncj153/2004oncj153.html)

The justice may not agree with you. And he has every right to since you have no Charter application for him to consider. If you are losing this argument, then get him to rule on the will say statements and the 3m measuring method. You want to know that in order to prepare your defence. Get him to order the Crown to disclose this to you.

You can try telling the Crown all of this before trial in an attempt to intimidate them to get them to drop the charge. And remember, don't let them hand you anything before the justice walks in. Keep your hands firmly clasped behind your back if that helps. One moment of forgetfulness and you are holding the by-law.

And remember, disclosure is not just about the by-law. It's also about those other items. Don't give in. You can do this.

Good luck and good fight!

[simplylgg]

Then no you don't have a fatal error if the original ticket has info the scan doesn't.

The insufficient disclosure argument will have to do. But since you haven't filed your Charter application, you are in a weaker position. The Crown has a duty to disclose, including the by-law, measurement process, will say statement, etc... They failed to do this. You can't proceed to trial. No way, no how!

You have to also emphasize that at 11 months for a relatively minor ticket, you are already in 11b territory for unreasonable delay. An adjournment to allow for disclosure would put you over the top. In affect, if the justice grants an adjournment, you are just going to be back arguing 11b. Let's save taking up valuable court time and just grant the stay now.

To support this argument, print three copies of the the following case and hand one to the prosecutor: R. v. Rowan, 2004 ONCJ 153 (CanLII) (http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2004/2004oncj153/2004oncj153.html)

The justice may not agree with you. And he has every right to since you have no Charter application for him to consider. If you are losing this argument, then get him to rule on the will say statements and the 3m measuring method. You want to know that in order to prepare your defence. Get him to order the Crown to disclose this to you.

You can try telling the Crown all of this before trial in an attempt to intimidate them to get them to drop the charge. And remember, don't let them hand you anything before the justice walks in. Keep your hands firmly clasped behind your back if that helps. One moment of forgetfulness and you are holding the by-law.

And remember, disclosure is not just about the by-law. It's also about those other items. Don't give in. You can do this.

Good luck and good fight!

Thanks for all the advice and although I am quiet nervous since this is my first time appearing in a court, but I think I can do this. I wish I could somehow pay you back for your all great help.

Thanks again.

[Mugen123]

hey ticketcombat, what is your website? i'm awaiting a court date in the mail for a speeding ticket, and failure to surrender insurance

[ticketcombat]

Just add ".com" to my name. I'm not allowed to post a link to my own site as that is considered spam. But anybody else can link to it, no problem.

[simplylgg]

Dear ticketcombat:
below is my experience from the court today:
1. The prosecutor lady came late and right in the court in front of the judge asked everyone to line-up and indicate if they want to plea guilty or not. She did not allow anyone to ask any question or anything. Very rude and prudent:
- I plead not guilty
- The officer was in the court
2. When I went in front of the judge, I used the exact punch line that you have on your site
"Before I enter the plea your worship I move that my case be styed since
- I did not receive the requested disclosure.
At this time first he asked when I had requested for "disclosure" in which I replied Jan. 11, 2009 and he told me why I waited so many month to ask for. My reply was that I was not aware of my rights and just recently realized that I can ask for this info to defend myself. He didn't seem to have accepted my excuse.
At this time the prosecutor told the judge that I have received the information on Feb 11, 09.
I indicated that I have not received the copy of the By-Law and officers notes and his measurement method.
The prosecutor jumped in and told the judge that it is my responsibility as a defendant to find and read and have the copy of by-law and not hers.
Judge agreed with her and told me what you want to do. I didn't know how to come back. Then I asked for adjournment since I am not prepared, in which prosecutor again told the judge they can't grant me that since the witness is present and it was my responsibility to be prepared.

I stayed calm and polite throughout the proceeding. Judge then asked me stay in the court and talk with the prosecutor at the end and decide what I want to do basically asking me to plea guilty.
My ticket was only parking and I saw whomever that plead not guilty was convicted. So I cave in. Although I got my fines reduced by 50%, but I am really upset, since I felt my rights were denied.:(

Anyways, I don't know what I did wrong and what I should have done differently there but thanks again for all your advice.
Maybe next time I will ask you to represent me in court.

[angel_wing0]

look at the bright side, at least u got it reduced by 50% just by simply showing up in court :)

[Whitedart]

look at the bright side, at least u got it reduced by 50% just by simply showing up in court :)

Plus he also gained some experience to what actually happens in court.

[simplylgg]

Plus he also gained some experience to what actually happens in court.

Yes I am happy that I have my fine reduced and gained valuable experince. I also want to know more and know how I could have done better.
I hope "ticketcombat" will get a chance and read this and give me some feedback.

[roadrunner17]

@ simplylgg

Why didn't you gone ahead and questioned officer how he measured the distance?

If measuring tape was used why it wasn't disclosed?

Nevertheless I appreciate the fact that you showed courage to fight an unfair ticket.

[ticketcombat]

Wow. Sometimes you get a sympathetic justice and sometimes you get that guy.

So what went wrong? There was a lot of intimidation going on but it looks like they were careful not to cross the line (maybe). But with so much pressure we can see why so many people cave in. They don't know what to say to all the snappy comebacks and questions "Why didn't you do this? Why didn't you do that?" They feel they are alone, don't know what to do and have no response for what they are being told. The deck is stacked against them and there is tremendous pressure.

It is at these times that we must call upon something within ourselves for strength. It reminds me of Elijah Harper holding his white feather and voting NO to the Meech Lake Accord. A single voice of objection amongst a chorus.

It's not easy to stick to your guns but that's what you needed to do. In fact I would suggest, if you have the stomach for it, you can appeal the conviction based on an inappropriate amount of pressure.

You did it right. You raised the issue of disclosure. Rather than ruling on it, the justice gave you a time out to "reconsider" your position. That way, he avoids having to rule in your favour. There is no way he could allow the trial to proceed without ruling on your disclosure motion. Both he and the prosecutor knew it. Hence the pressure to get you to plead guilty.

With experience comes confidence. We've all learned something the hard way as you did yesterday.

As Angel_wing0 and Whitedart suggest, you did get a reduction and gained some experience which will make you stronger if there should ever be a next time. You can't get that kind of training course for under $100 in any school.

[simplylgg]

Was the prosecutor right in claiming that it was my responsibility to find the By-Law? If not, how could have proven that she is wrong and it is their responsibility to provide me that? What section of the charter I refer to for this claim?

The pressure in the court was tremundous. All eyes on you as a petty criminal while you are not. They are out in force for you to cave in and plea guilty.

[simplylgg]

@ simplylgg

Why didn't you gone ahead and questioned officer how he measured the distance?

If measuring tape was used why it wasn't disclosed?

Nevertheless I appreciate the fact that you showed courage to fight an unfair ticket.

Thanks for the heart warming comments. Based on the advice from "ticketcombat" my intention was to convince the judge to drop the case or postpond the trial instead of going to trail and get convicted. I did not want to call the officer for testimony which meant trial.

BTW, some other guy who actually plead not guilty and had the officer to testify, the officer response was that his car was completely obstructing the fire hydrant so he didn't have to do any measurements.

[Whitedart]

BTW, some other guy who actually plead not guilty and had the officer to testify, the officer response was that his car was completely obstructing the fire hydrant so he didn't have to do any measurements.

And from the disclosure notes your posted, I had the same impression about the manner that your car was parked, that it was completely blocking the hydrant as viewed from the road side.

If your case had gone to trial, and you were convicted, I doubt there would have been a penalty reduction.

The Justice and the prosecutor hear these cases day after day, week after week, so know all the various ways people try to beat parking or traffic tickets. The prosecutors I know also follow some of the forum discussions like this, and other web sites.

My experience has been that the prosecutor will not bother to proceed if the charge is questionable when you have requested disclosure and appear in court, but if the charge is solid they will not let it go.

Nikita has pointed out valid reasons for an appeal in other threads, but in this case you pleaded guilty with a lesser penalty (1/2 the cost of the ticket) with no insurance or demerit points impact. The fact that you felt intimidated would not be good grounds to appeal due to your lack of experience in court.

[simplylgg]

And from the disclosure notes your posted, I had the same impression about the manner that your car was parked, that it was completely blocking the hydrant as viewed from the road side.

If your case had gone to trial, and you were convicted, I doubt there would have been a penalty reduction.

The Justice and the prosecutor hear these cases day after day, week after week, so know all the various ways people try to beat parking or traffic tickets. The prosecutors I know also follow some of the forum discussions like this, and other web sites.

My experience has been that the prosecutor will not bother to proceed if the charge is questionable when you have requested disclosure and appear in court, but if the charge is solid they will not let it go.

Nikita has pointed out valid reasons for an appeal in other threads, but in this case you pleaded guilty with a lesser penalty (1/2 the cost of the ticket) with no insurance or demerit points impact. The fact that you felt intimidated would not be good grounds to appeal due to your lack of experience in court.

No sane person will knowingly park in front of the fire hydrant and I know for fact that I wasn't park the way the officer had drawn in his note indicating that I was obstructing completely the fire hydrant. However, I also knew that I couldn't prove that since it would have been my word against the officer and judge will definitely rule against me. If the system is not fair and everyone knows that many of tickets are just cash grabs, so it is our right to find ways to defend ourselves the same way that the system is trying to convict us and deprive us from our hard earned money.
I don't think I have the time or the stomach to appeal, but I want to learn and help other friends as tiketcombat does for others.

[chanman]

There are several threads on this site already offering a range of advice about what to do. I've just updated my site with specific instructions for seatbelt and stop sign violations. I am working on a draft for red light camera tickets coming soon.

ticketcombat - thanks for your detailed response! It's much appreciated and I look forward to your draft on red light tickets in the near future. You sir, are an awesome resource and I commend you on your work and generosity in sharing what you know.

Just for reference the red light ticket was $180. The prosecutor reduced it to 30% so the fine was $60. Tack on a $15 victim surcharge and some other $5 charge and the total paid was $80 on a guilty plea.

I had thought about pursuing disclosure and requesting technical information on the red light camera - maintenance records, training manuals on its use, etc, and training records for the officer who signed the ticket, etc. It was in the hopes of finding some evidence of a technical problem with the camera/photo, or finding something that cast doubt on whether the officer properly signed off on the ticket.

But in the end I decided the cost to me in time spent pursuing this was far greater than the cost in just paying off the fine, so I went with that. Still I can't help but wonder how things might have turned out if I pursued this.

[chanman]

I don't think I have the time or the stomach to appeal, but I want to learn and help other friends as tiketcombat does for others.

simplylgg - sorry to hear things didn't work out for you, but hats off to you for trying to fight them!

[simplylgg]

simplylgg - sorry to hear things didn't work out for you, but hats off to you for trying to fight them!

Thanks chanman for the nice words. I also am greatful to ticketcombat for all his help. Although I didn't have a pleasant experince in court, but I learned some very valuable lessons.

[ticketcombat]

The fact that you felt intimidated would not be good grounds to appeal due to your lack of experience in court.

I know that we should have closure on this thread but I'm still miffed about the result. I just want to point out that the courts have a duty to explain what's going on to an unrepresented defendant.

The key cases are:
R. v. Al-Emam, 2006 BCSC 835 (http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2006/2006bcsc835/2006bcsc835.html)
R. v. Moghaddam, 2006 BCCA 136 (http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2006/2006bcca136/2006bcca136.html)
R. v. Andrews, 2005 ONCJ 287 (http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2005/2005oncj287/2005oncj287.html)


When the conviction is overturned the appeal court said the justice didn't explain his decision adequately to the defendant or why he ignored certain statements or evidence. That his explanation wasn't adequate was the grounds to overturn the justice's decision.

Another reason is that the court found that the overriding issue in question is whether or not an unrepresented or self-represented defendant receives sufficient and adequate assistance from the judge to bring the defence into full force and effect.

In other words, they must help you and explain everything to you, not intimidate you. In this case, simplylgg did everything right but was forced into a corner and pressured to back down. This was wrong. Intimidation has no place in a modern court and gives the defendant a disreputable impression of the justice system. In my opinion, this is more than enough to overturn the conviction.

I know that simplylgg doesn't want to appeal. But I want to state that no one should read these posts without realizing that the outcome is not a reflection of the effort put into fighting the charge. simplylgg did an amazing job.

p.s. Thanks everyone for your kind comments about my site. I really do appreciate them!

[chanman]

No sane person will knowingly park in front of the fire hydrant and I know for fact that I wasn't park the way the officer had drawn in his note indicating that I was obstructing completely the fire hydrant. However, I also knew that I couldn't prove that since it would have been my word against the officer and judge will definitely rule against me.

ticketcombat - let's say simplylgg had taken photos of his car showing that he was not blocking the hydrant. Is that something he could have presented as evidence?

[ticketcombat]

Yes but it would be viewed in context. Was it taken at the time of the offence? Did the defendant more the car "a little bit"?

I remember one case where the defendant was charged with blocking a driveway. He submitted a photo showing the front of the vehicle was well back of the edge of the driveway. The ticket and windshield were covered in snow and there was no tire track in the snow to suggest the vehicle had been moved.

The only problem: he was ticketed for blocking the driveway at the rear of the vehicle! His photo "conveniently" left out that section of his car. The best part: he was an off duty cop!

[Whitedart]

I know that we should have closure on this thread but I'm still miffed about the result. I just want to point out that the courts have a duty to explain what's going on to an unrepresented defendant.

The key cases are:
R. v. Al-Emam, 2006 BCSC 835 (http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2006/2006bcsc835/2006bcsc835.html)
R. v. Moghaddam, 2006 BCCA 136 (http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2006/2006bcca136/2006bcca136.html)
R. v. Andrews, 2005 ONCJ 287 (http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2005/2005oncj287/2005oncj287.html)


When the conviction is overturned the appeal court said the justice didn't explain his decision adequately to the defendant or why he ignored certain statements or evidence. That his explanation wasn't adequate was the grounds to overturn the justice's decision.

Another reason is that the court found that the overriding issue in question is whether or not an unrepresented or self-represented defendant receives sufficient and adequate assistance from the judge to bring the defence into full force and effect.

In other words, they must help you and explain everything to you, not intimidate you. In this case, simplylgg did everything right but was forced into a corner and pressured to back down. This was wrong. Intimidation has no place in a modern court and gives the defendant a disreputable impression of the justice system. In my opinion, this is more than enough to overturn the conviction.

I know that simplylgg doesn't want to appeal. But I want to state that no one should read these posts without realizing that the outcome is not a reflection of the effort put into fighting the charge. simplylgg did an amazing job.

Interesting case law. I have not seen those before.

[chanman]

Yes but it would be viewed in context. Was it taken at the time of the offence? Did the defendant more the car "a little bit"?

I remember one case where the defendant was charged with blocking a driveway. He submitted a photo showing the front of the vehicle was well back of the edge of the driveway. The ticket and windshield were covered in snow and there was no tire track in the snow to suggest the vehicle had been moved.

The only problem: he was ticketed for blocking the driveway at the rear of the vehicle! His photo "conveniently" left out that section of his car. The best part: he was an off duty cop!

Thanks ticketcombat - good to know you *can* bring in a photo to support your case.