Automotive

Ask me anything about fighting your traffic ticket (Speeding, Parking, etc.)

Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
5640 posts
922 upvotes
Ontario / Quebec
zeddy wrote: He got it measured today at 26%. Law is that it needs to be 30%.

But I keep finding this.... Any vehicles built after January 1, 2017 cannot have any aftermarket window tinting on their windshield. The front door windows cannot be tinted more than 30% darkness. There are no new regulations for the rear windows.

His car is a 2012. Cop did not measure tint. Previous owner tinted the windows and was never pulled over.

If it won’t be a hit on his insurance he will pay the fine and remove the tint.

Thanks for answering. I’m just super frustrated.
I'm a bit confused about the terminology - you state:
He got it measured today at 26%. Law is that it needs to be 30%.
and
The front door windows cannot be tinted more than 30% darkness

When I check the current law in Ontario (it varies by province) and forgetting about the pre 2017 laws, it states that
1. For the windshield, the maximum opacity allowed is 30% and
2. No number specified for the front side windows, but if up to 30% opacity is allowed for the windshield, it logically can't be any less.

So when they measured the side tinted windows at 26%, I assume that was 26% opacity which would be perfectly legal (and not 26% luminous transmittance or 74% opacity which would be quite dark and obviously not legal.
Member
Aug 25, 2013
291 posts
326 upvotes
Hello,

I got a speeding ticket last year in Montreal for supposedly going 70 in a 50. My car has an Ontario license plate. It was a downhill ramp. As soon as I got down the ramp, I noticed the cop standing in my lane and pointing at me to pull over. He had no laser or anything and there was even a bit of traffic meaning no one could've been going 70. It was also raining. I asked to see the radar and he refused saying he doesn't have to. I took it to court and was given a court date. In the meantime, I asked for evidence and received the evidence a few days ago. I looked at the evidence and first off, it is very generic without any specific information on me or my car. Second, the cop put the name of the street I was merging to as opposed to mentioning the ramp that I was actually pulled over from. He says something like, the person was on so and so street in front of the 50 sign but the reality is he got me before I even reached that street, it was on the ramp. And I only got on the street AFTER I was let go. My questions are:

1. Can I argue that the evidence given to me is generic and that could apply to anybody? Because really, you'd never know who the cop is talking about by looking at the evidence.
2. The false information on the name of the street and where speeding occurred, can I somehow use that against the cop?
3. How can I prove that there was traffic? And can I bring weather into the equation?
4. The fact that he had no radar and refused to even me show me the device itself is a bit sketchy. Can that help me?
5. I really think my Ontario plate had something to do with my ticket, perhaps the cop thought I was an easy target as I am a visitor, can I somehow mention that?

Thanks
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
10154 posts
6450 upvotes
Edmonton
Pete2662 wrote: Hello,

I got a speeding ticket last year in Montreal for supposedly going 70 in a 50. My car has an Ontario license plate. It was a downhill ramp. As soon as I got down the ramp, I noticed the cop standing in my lane and pointing at me to pull over. He had no laser or anything and there was even a bit of traffic meaning no one could've been going 70. It was also raining. I asked to see the radar and he refused saying he doesn't have to. I took it to court and was given a court date. In the meantime, I asked for evidence and received the evidence a few days ago. I looked at the evidence and first off, it is very generic without any specific information on me or my car. Second, the cop put the name of the street I was merging to as opposed to mentioning the ramp that I was actually pulled over from. He says something like, the person was on so and so street in front of the 50 sign but the reality is he got me before I even reached that street, it was on the ramp. And I only got on the street AFTER I was let go. My questions are:

1. Can I argue that the evidence given to me is generic and that could apply to anybody? Because really, you'd never know who the cop is talking about by looking at the evidence.
2. The false information on the name of the street and where speeding occurred, can I somehow use that against the cop?
3. How can I prove that there was traffic? And can I bring weather into the equation?
4. The fact that he had no radar and refused to even me show me the device itself is a bit sketchy. Can that help me?
5. I really think my Ontario plate had something to do with my ticket, perhaps the cop thought I was an easy target as I am a visitor, can I somehow mention that?

Thanks
Here's my take on your situation...

1) You need to discredit the officer's testimony that he's going to offer. Where the speeding occurred is a good starting point, especially if there's a sign ahead of you with the reduced speed limit. It might help to have pictures of where you were pulled over, where the cop was, etc.
2) You can also try introducing the errors on the street name as well. The attempt to discredit is a process of poking numerous holes.
3) Just because there's traffic doesn't mean you weren't speeding. Don't think this will help you.
4) He didn't have to show you the radar gun. It has no bearing on whether you were actually speeding or not
5) Your license plate has no bearing on whether you were actually speeding or not.

Keep in mind that in QC, I believe you need to specifically request the officer's attendance if you want to question him.

C
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
5640 posts
922 upvotes
Ontario / Quebec
Pete2662 wrote: Hello,

I got a speeding ticket last year in Montreal for supposedly going 70 in a 50. My car has an Ontario license plate. It was a downhill ramp. As soon as I got down the ramp, I noticed the cop standing in my lane and pointing at me to pull over. He had no laser or anything and there was even a bit of traffic meaning no one could've been going 70. It was also raining. I asked to see the radar and he refused saying he doesn't have to. I took it to court and was given a court date. In the meantime, I asked for evidence and received the evidence a few days ago. I looked at the evidence and first off, it is very generic without any specific information on me or my car. Second, the cop put the name of the street I was merging to as opposed to mentioning the ramp that I was actually pulled over from. He says something like, the person was on so and so street in front of the 50 sign but the reality is he got me before I even reached that street, it was on the ramp. And I only got on the street AFTER I was let go.
The problem I see is what I bolded above.

The "evidence" that the JP will look at indicates that Pete was going over 50 on the street he was merging to where the speed limit is 50 for sure, it being a city street.
How would Pete be able to prove he was actually pulled over on the ramp where the speed limit was possibly higher, possibly 70?
Member
Aug 25, 2013
291 posts
326 upvotes
CNeufeld wrote: Here's my take on your situation...

1) You need to discredit the officer's testimony that he's going to offer. Where the speeding occurred is a good starting point, especially if there's a sign ahead of you with the reduced speed limit. It might help to have pictures of where you were pulled over, where the cop was, etc.
2) You can also try introducing the errors on the street name as well. The attempt to discredit is a process of poking numerous holes.
3) Just because there's traffic doesn't mean you weren't speeding. Don't think this will help you.
4) He didn't have to show you the radar gun. It has no bearing on whether you were actually speeding or not
5) Your license plate has no bearing on whether you were actually speeding or not.

Keep in mind that in QC, I believe you need to specifically request the officer's attendance if you want to question him.

C
Thanks for your reply! That's the issue, in QC, or at least in Montreal, they apparently make it really hard to fight your ticket.

If I ask the cop to show up and they don't, do I automatically win? If he does show up though, I can try and get him to recall the situation but what sort of questions should I ask to discredit his testimony? It's tough as it would be my words against his. I already have photos of the location and the ramp and can start by saying something like I was on the ramp and not on the stated street/location and say I was not speeding. But that's all I have.

Thanks for your help!
Member
Aug 25, 2013
291 posts
326 upvotes
krs wrote: The problem I see is what I bolded above.

The "evidence" that the JP will look at indicates that Pete was going over 50 on the street he was merging to where the speed limit is 50 for sure, it being a city street.
How would Pete be able to prove he was actually pulled over on the ramp where the speed limit was possibly higher, possibly 70?
This would also be my question. I, for sure, was not on the stated street. Yes, the 50 sign is there but on the ramp and not on the street as stated in the evidence.
Newbie
Aug 27, 2007
3 posts
ottawa, ontario
Hello...My son received a failed to stop ticket. He says that he did stop and looked both ways. Also, the officer was behind a snow bank and couldn't see him. We were going to contest it and ask for video proof. I noticed that the officer put 4 am instead of 4 pm on the ticket. Is this a fatal error as it is a stop sign violation? If so, is it a faster process than requesting disclosure and going to court to get it cancelled?...Thanks
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
10154 posts
6450 upvotes
Edmonton
mmainvi wrote: Hello...My son received a failed to stop ticket. He says that he did stop and looked both ways. Also, the officer was behind a snow bank and couldn't see him. We were going to contest it and ask for video proof. I noticed that the officer put 4 am instead of 4 pm on the ticket. Is this a fatal error as it is a stop sign violation? If so, is it a faster process than requesting disclosure and going to court to get it cancelled?...Thanks
According to this page, it's not a fatal error:
https://ticketcombat.com/offences/fatal.php

As far as demanding "video proof" goes, they don't need to provide that if no video was taken. The officer's testimony is all that's required to convict. You can try to discredit the officer's testimony by questioning him on what he could or couldn't see, where he was parked, show pictures from where he was parked, etc. But lack of video evidence isn't going to kill the prosecution's case in itself.

C
Newbie
Jan 19, 2020
1 posts
Red light camera question. I received a letter in the mail detailing that my car went through the red light. This is Toronto, so the total fine is $325. I don't want to go to trial, but is it worth meeting with the prosecutor? The evidence in the letter is clear. But this is my first red light offence, and I would prefer to get the fine reduced, if in any way possible.
Member
Nov 26, 2014
231 posts
153 upvotes
Edmonton, AB
I got a cell ticket last sep, and schedule the trial date in this July. I am in alberta.

But today I receive a letter from court, says the crown will be unable to process your trial on the above date due to witness unavailable. And they are seek adjournment and fixation on the currently trial schedule date.

Please advice what should I do ?
Member
Nov 26, 2014
231 posts
153 upvotes
Edmonton, AB
Do I still to ask fro disclosure and fight it back?
Member
Mar 3, 2009
465 posts
28 upvotes
Another red light camera question.

Got one recently, and went back to look at the location.

There is no sign stating or warning that a camera is present.

I thought the law was they had to erect a sign telling the public there is a camera there. Has that changed, and if not, can that be used to fight the ticket?

Thanks.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
10154 posts
6450 upvotes
Edmonton
fred999 wrote: Another red light camera question.

Got one recently, and went back to look at the location.

There is no sign stating or warning that a camera is present.

I thought the law was they had to erect a sign telling the public there is a camera there. Has that changed, and if not, can that be used to fight the ticket?

Thanks.
You might want to lead with a location. Different jurisdictions have different rules.

C
Newbie
Oct 25, 2004
14 posts
Toronto
Hi Everyone,
Last week I was pulled over and received 3 tickets:
1. Failure to surrender insurance card.
2. Obstructed plate (Licence plate cover).
3. Speeding 86 in a 50 zone (36 km over).

Some comments:
For ticket 1, I had an expired slip in the car. It my error for not checking my mail often enough and putting the new paperwork in my car.

For ticket 2, I had a slightly tinted plate cover on the car. The tint was minor but obviously the officer thought it was too dark. I removed the plate cover now.

I mailed ticket 1 and 2 to the court requesting “early resolution”. I’m hoping that if I show the updated insurance slip that ticket 1 would be cancelled. For ticket 2 I’ve taken pictures of my car to show what it looks like. Yes there is a plate cover, but my plate is visible. Anyway, I’m hoping that showing I’ve removed it could help get the ticket cancelled.

Am I just dreaming that showing I’ve solved the issues that caused me from getting the tickets is good enough to get them cancelled? Any advice for these offences would be appreciated.

For for ticket 3 (speeding 36km over). I’m shocked that I got this ticket. It is on a road I frequently travel and I don’t speed there. The police officer showed me the radar gun and said “it’s a laser radar gun, it’s definitely correct”. I haven’t done anything with this ticket yet, but I intend to take this one to trial. What advice do folks have for an infraction like this? I truely don’t think I was going 86. There was a car directly in front of me, about 10 car lengths ahead of me, both of us in the left lane. It was 6pm (rush hour) so there were cars travelling the opposite direction as well, not many, but there were definitely other cars on the road. Is there any defence to say try the radar may have clocked another Car? Or does that not have any chance? It sounds weak to me so really I think I need a stronger case.

Lastly, these tickets were issued to me on Financial Drive just south of the 407. This is right on the border of Brampton and Mississauga. The cop was parked about 20m after the sign that denotes entering Mississauga, I was pulled over about 30-40m past where he was parked. He wrote the location of the infraction was Brampton. But I was technically pulled over in Mississauga. Can I use this to my advantage?

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (1 member and 0 guests)

filipa950