Automotive

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

Deal Addict
Oct 10, 2008
1401 posts
125 upvotes
Vancouver
Need advice on a speeding in Construction Zone ticket.

I was driving from Kelowna to Vancouver on the highway. Highway speed limit is 120 km/h. Signs said construction up ahead reduce to 90 km/h, at this point I'm going 100 km/h. Another sign up ahead says 60km/h, and there was a flashing sign that said I'm going too fast "102 km/h".

So I slowed to about 80 km/h, no real construction in sight. When I see the construction up ahead I slowed down to about 65km/h. Then when I see the actual construction, I get stopped by a police officer who said I was going at 102 km/h in a 60 km/h construction zone. He was standing next to a radar tripod but never actually showed me a reading.

Wrote me a $250 ticket.

The court hearing is in Kelowna, but I live in Vancouver.

Is this worth fighting? If I do fight how do I move the court location to Vancouver?

Thanks
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
3540 posts
1442 upvotes
Edmonton
drey2k wrote:
Jul 11th, 2017 5:53 pm
Need advice on a speeding in Construction Zone ticket.

I was driving from Kelowna to Vancouver on the highway. Highway speed limit is 120 km/h. Signs said construction up ahead reduce to 90 km/h, at this point I'm going 100 km/h. Another sign up ahead says 60km/h, and there was a flashing sign that said I'm going too fast "102 km/h".

So I slowed to about 80 km/h, no real construction in sight. When I see the construction up ahead I slowed down to about 65km/h. Then when I see the actual construction, I get stopped by a police officer who said I was going at 102 km/h in a 60 km/h construction zone. He was standing next to a radar tripod but never actually showed me a reading.

Wrote me a $250 ticket.

The court hearing is in Kelowna, but I live in Vancouver.

Is this worth fighting? If I do fight how do I move the court location to Vancouver?

Thanks
You don't get it moved. You think the prosecutor and cop are going to drive to you?

You could hire someone local to fight it. You can always request disclosure and see what that offers first. And pay the ticket any time to avoid the trial. But unless they made an error, it sounds like you were doing what they ticketed you for. Which makes it tougher to fight.

C
Deal Addict
Oct 10, 2008
1401 posts
125 upvotes
Vancouver
CNeufeld wrote:
Jul 11th, 2017 6:39 pm
You don't get it moved. You think the prosecutor and cop are going to drive to you?

You could hire someone local to fight it. You can always request disclosure and see what that offers first. And pay the ticket any time to avoid the trial. But unless they made an error, it sounds like you were doing what they ticketed you for. Which makes it tougher to fight.

C
Hey, thank you.

In regards to disclosure, can I get it without going to trial? Or do I have to fight the ticket to request disclosure?

I really don't want to spend extra money on this because I'm pretty sure the cop had me on radar and it's going to be hard as hell to fight. He was in the perfect position to catch people in the big speed transition from 120-60km... he is an older cop who knows what he's doing.

Thanks again
Newbie
Jul 10, 2017
1 posts
Need advice over a driving with a communication device charge. The officer said he noticed me at a red light on my phone and wrote me a ticket for it. He mentioned that I should definitely not pay the ticket and should instead fight it.

After some googling on the matter it seems in most other cases I've read regarding this charge the officer made sure to note what phone the person had for his notes. The officer did no such thing in my case and I'm wondering if he assumed I was on my phone simply because I was looking down at the red light. Would it be possibly to bring this up to get the charge dropped? Since he never made any attempt to prove I was on my phone and I never admitted to him that I was on my phone I don't see how they would have a case, but I've heard these charges are notoriously hard to get dropped as its the officers word vs yours.
Newbie
Jul 8, 2017
3 posts
I got a parking ticket of 45 $ for parking in Hotel parking lot, which is a private property.
Ticket issued in Mississauga, Port Credit.
I was staying in hotel and did not put up the permit given by Hotel to me on that day.
Hotel authorities have issued waiver letter for me.

Is it worth fighting out or just pay it and forget.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
3540 posts
1442 upvotes
Edmonton
You can request a trial and disclosure, but then chose to pay the ticket before trial. You're not committed fighting it just because you request a trial.

C
Newbie
Jun 15, 2017
56 posts
7 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
zakregent wrote:
Jul 11th, 2017 12:45 pm
Thanks for the reply. Yes, I will be going to the Court of Justice and choosing the Trial Option. I'll update once I get more info.

A side question I was wondering about: If I do choose the Trial Option, get a court date and the office does not show up; Does my ticket get dropped completely?
If the officer does not show up for the trial, then you should ask for the ticket to be withdrawn. Although in Ontario it is rare for officer to not show for court.
--
I am not a lawyer and I am not a paralegal and I do not give legal advice.
All statements made are my opinion only.
--
ShrekTek.ca
Newbie
Jun 15, 2017
56 posts
7 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
OntarioPerson wrote:
Jul 11th, 2017 1:35 pm
Hey guys,

I received a red light camera ticket on June 13th, and am wondering what your advice is on how I should proceed. Based on google imagery of where the sign is located it's only 110 meters from the solid white line indicating the beginning of the intersection. Is the law for Ontario that the red light camera sign needs to be at least 400 meters prior to the camera?

Details:
The first image of my vehicle depicts my speed as 53 km/h in a 60km/h zone, and shows my car AT the line when the light turned red. It says the light was red for 0.4 seconds when my vehicle "approached" the intersection - but in reality my vehicle is already AT the intersection.

The second image then depicts my car a single car length ahead (and into the intersection) and indicates that the light had then been red for 1.4 seconds.

The exact wording is as below:

"as shown in the digitized images set forth in this notice, contrary to subsection 144(18.1) and pursuant to section 207 of the Highway Traffic Act. The photographs taken by the red light camera system show the vehicle approaching the intersection, at which time the signal had displayed red for 000.4 seconds and that vehicle proceeded through the intersection when the light had been red for 001.4 seconds. I believe and certify that the above offence has been committed. Signature of Officer issuing this notice" it then depicts a barely discernible signature.

Any advice and information on the legislation of the red light camera signage would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks to all the individuals who contribute to everyone's questions!
As far as I am aware, there is no requirement for them put up signs about red light cameras. I could be wrong on this, but am pretty sure I have never seen anything about signage for red light cameras.

Anyways, you should plead NOT GUILTY and request a trial with the officer present. Once you get your Notice of Trial, you can request disclosure (make/model/serial number of camera system used, method used for detecting speed, officers notes).

So the ticket is for a violation of Section 144 (18.1) of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, which reads:
Red light
(18) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle and shall not proceed until a green indication is shown.

Certificate of offence – owner – red light camera evidence
(18.1) A person who issues a certificate of offence and offence notice under subsection 3 (2) of the Provincial Offences Act for a contravention of subsection (18) shall, despite that Act and the regulations under that Act, specify this subsection, instead of subsection (18), as the provision that was contravened, if,
(a) the person who issues the certificate of offence and offence notice believes that the offence was committed on the basis of evidence obtained through the use of a red light camera system; and
(b) the defendant is being charged as the owner of the vehicle.


So the good news is that you have been charged as the OWNER of the vehicle and not as the DRIVER. This means that you will NOT receive any demerits against your license and it should not affect your insurance at all. The bad news of course is that it is still $$$ fine :(

If you read Section 144 (18) carefully, it says you need to stop at the red light and can not proceed until a green light is indicated. Does this intersection have a "no right turn on red" sign? I was under the impression that, unless there is a sign prohibiting it, you can turn right on a red light in Ontario, however this particular section seems to disagree with that.

The next thing to do is go read the regulations on Red Light Cameras, which can be found here:
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/990277

As you read thru all of that, you will be able to figure out if the pictures are from a Gatsometer RLC (model number 36mST-MC-GL4-ONT) or a TraffiStar (SR 520-ONT).

For the first point, read the section which explains what all the stuff on the picture means. As far as speed goes, there are a couple ways that I know of that these devices can measure speed. One would be induction loops embedded in the pavement and the other would be with radar.

The next point to consider is that in Section 4 (1) of the regulation, it says the officer needs to serve you (by mail is fine) within 23 days of the offence. What is the DEEMED SERVICE DATE on the ticket? I would cross-exam the officer on this point. Did the officer put the notice in an enevelope himself, put a stamp on it himself, and then place it in a Canada Post mailing box himself? If he simply signed it but then left it for somebody else to mail, then how does he know what day is was mailed? The section says that you may be served when the officer "sending the offence notice by regular prepaid mail or courier". I would argue that unless the officer put the letter in the mail box himself (or took it to the post office himself) how can he know for sure that it was "mailed" on a certain day for sure? It is certainly possible that the person who mails them out had it sitting around on their desk for a few days before they got to the post office.

The last point I would consider is cross-examining the officer on the what it says at the bottom of the ticket in the PLEASE NOTE section. "The Provincial Offences Offices has certified that the red light camera system used in the detection of this offence ... was in proper working order ... traffic signals were in proper working order". So this would bring up questions like "Officer did you go out and test this system? How did you test? When did you test? How do you know it can accurately measure speed of moving vehicle? How do you know traffic lights were working properly that day? Did you observe them?"

Hope this is helpful
--
I am not a lawyer and I am not a paralegal and I do not give legal advice.
All statements made are my opinion only.
--
ShrekTek.ca
Jr. Member
Feb 13, 2005
117 posts
6 upvotes
Hi all, I was pulled over for having a faded rear license plate a few days ago and it was written up as "Dirty Plates". The fine was $110 which isn't much and the officer told to to get it replaced in order to lower the fine.

I plan on replacing the plates (but haven't done so yet) as the officer recommended, but here I'm sort of confused on next step regarding the 3 options on the ticket.

Option 1 - Plead guilty and pay. Makes no sense to pay the full $110 since I can have it lowered
Option 2 - Plead guilty with an explanation?
Option 3 - Not Guilty with a Trial... If I get my plates replaced, does that show that I am guilty?

Just reading it seems that everyone should pick option 3 and never plead guilty... would this apply in my situation?

The fee's isn't much, just worried about the long term insurance implications even on such a small infraction. Thanks in advance!
Deal Addict
User avatar
May 8, 2002
3580 posts
135 upvotes
xCoeus wrote:
Jul 11th, 2017 9:11 pm
After some googling on the matter it seems in most other cases I've read regarding this charge the officer made sure to note what phone the person had for his notes. The officer did no such thing in my case and I'm wondering if he assumed I was on my phone simply because I was looking down at the red light. Would it be possibly to bring this up to get the charge dropped? Since he never made any attempt to prove I was on my phone and I never admitted to him that I was on my phone I don't see how they would have a case, but I've heard these charges are notoriously hard to get dropped as its the officers word vs yours.
As you said it would be his word versus yours. Issue would be to raise doubt that it was actually a cell phone you were holding, as opposed to a sunglasses case, notebook, other similarly sized black object.

Make/model of cell is irrelevant, officers credibility is much more important, and if you can challenge that and create doubt you may have a chance. The fact he did not record the type of phone may mean he may not have a clear recollection of the event...
Green Lantern wrote:
Jul 12th, 2017 11:55 am
Hi all, I was pulled over for having a faded rear license plate a few days ago and it was written up as "Dirty Plates". The fine was $110 which isn't much and the officer told to to get it replaced in order to lower the fine.

I plan on replacing the plates (but haven't done so yet) as the officer recommended, but here I'm sort of confused on next step regarding the 3 options on the ticket.

Option 1 - Plead guilty and pay. Makes no sense to pay the full $110 since I can have it lowered
Option 2 - Plead guilty with an explanation?
Option 3 - Not Guilty with a Trial... If I get my plates replaced, does that show that I am guilty?

Just reading it seems that everyone should pick option 3 and never plead guilty... would this apply in my situation?

The fee's isn't much, just worried about the long term insurance implications even on such a small infraction. Thanks in advance!
Not sure why you assume you can have it lowered for option one?? What charge would you have it lowered to?

Option 2 is pointless

You can pick option 3, but what would be your defense if it actually does go to trial? Or you could just play the game and hope the officer doesn't show or there is enough delay for 11(b)...
Jr. Member
Feb 13, 2005
117 posts
6 upvotes
joshmxpx wrote:
Jul 12th, 2017 12:40 pm
Not sure why you assume you can have it lowered for option one?? What charge would you have it lowered to?

Option 2 is pointless

You can pick option 3, but what would be your defense if it actually does go to trial? Or you could just play the game and hope the officer doesn't show or there is enough delay for 11(b)...
In total agreement that it wouldn't be lowered if I picked Opt# 1. You misread what I wrote, never assumed it would be lowered for Opt #1 and would need to pay the full amount.

I don't have a defense for Opt #3 if I do replace my plates, which is why I'm hesitant on picking 3.

Opt #2, just seems like the most fitting situation... but just wanted to hear other opinions first. Why would this be the pointless option?
Newbie
Jul 11, 2017
1 posts
Hi, I was wondering if anyone could give me some advice.

I was involved in an accident and rear ended someone. Their car was slightly damaged but my car was a total write off. There was traffic and weather conditions were not good, in panic I pressed on the gas instead of the breaks and rear ended them.
I was given a pink ticket that says "Summons/Assignation" for Careless Driving which gives me the options of pleading guilty, setting a date for trial, or the trial may proceed written on the back. There were no witnesses besides the other party involved in the accident; the police came after.

Should I take this to trial or just try and get a plea deal from the prosecutor? I have looked up previous cases that are similar to mine, and the judge convicted them of careless driving when they tried to fight it.
The only reason I would take it to trial is if it can get thrown out/I could win, but I'm not sure if the risk reward is worth it. The possibility of being convicted of careless driving (instead of taking a plea) vs the small chance it will get thrown out/I can win.

Thank you.
Newbie
Feb 17, 2015
63 posts
28 upvotes
Calgary, AB
Hello, from Calgary here.

Seriously made a mistake as I was rushing for an appointment and parked at a wrong spot (didn't see the signage properly) and got a 300 ticket (200 if paid within 10 days). Stupid me even paid for an hour's parking not realizing I've parked in the wrong spot. I have never made an error like this as I always notice the signs and don't park in the wrong spot. Anyhow, I was planning to appear at Traffic Court with the first appearance prosecutor for a plea bargain. However, the parking ticket (tag) did not write a court date. Does anyone know if the parking violation will only be filed and sent to me after 30 days from getting my ticket? (this should show the court date right?)

Thanks very much for any help guys
Sr. Member
Apr 23, 2014
660 posts
96 upvotes
OntarioThrowaway wrote:
Jul 12th, 2017 6:36 pm
Hi, I was wondering if anyone could give me some advice.

I was involved in an accident and rear ended someone. Their car was slightly damaged but my car was a total write off. There was traffic and weather conditions were not good, in panic I pressed on the gas instead of the breaks and rear ended them.
I was given a pink ticket that says "Summons/Assignation" for Careless Driving which gives me the options of pleading guilty, setting a date for trial, or the trial may proceed written on the back. There were no witnesses besides the other party involved in the accident; the police came after.

Should I take this to trial or just try and get a plea deal from the prosecutor? I have looked up previous cases that are similar to mine, and the judge convicted them of careless driving when they tried to fight it.
The only reason I would take it to trial is if it can get thrown out/I could win, but I'm not sure if the risk reward is worth it. The possibility of being convicted of careless driving (instead of taking a plea) vs the small chance it will get thrown out/I can win.

Thank you.
these days everyone has a dash cam not only in the front but also in the rear and some people have cameras in the sides as well, so even if there is no human witness there is still a video which recorded the whole thing. People seem to forget the dashcams take excellent video and audio and are always on.
Deal Addict
User avatar
May 8, 2002
3580 posts
135 upvotes
Penrose wrote:
Jul 12th, 2017 11:53 pm
these days everyone has a dash cam not only in the front but also in the rear and some people have cameras in the sides as well, so even if there is no human witness there is still a video which recorded the whole thing. People seem to forget the dashcams take excellent video and audio and are always on.
Maybe in unicorn land (GTA), but where I am we investigate collisions daily and less than 0.1% of vehicles have dash cams, so usually there really are no witnesses

Top

Thread Information

There are currently 3 users viewing this thread. (1 member and 2 guests)

Tonyzee