Automotive

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

Jr. Member
Aug 24, 2014
194 posts
7 upvotes
North York
I got a speeding ticket yesterday for driving 129km/h on highway 401 (100km/h).

It's 3 demerit points and the maximum fine is around $140.

I had a clean record before.

This is what I gathered from internet,

1. Your car insurance rates go up if you have conviction. It doesn't depend on how many demerit points you get.

2. Hiring a ticket fighter may reduce your demerit points and fine. But they won't be able to make you get away with conviction. So your insurance rates would go up even if your ticket fighter reduce your demerit points to zero. Also, in the end you pay more expense even with reduced fine, because you have to pay your ticket fighter, as well.

3. You can ask for a trial, which can take up to 1 year. But unlike US police, Canadian police most likely to show up on court with hard evidence.
So your chances of winning a trial is very unlikely

4. I'm with Statefarm. And it looks like they charge about $100 more for one speeding ticket a year???

5. Your speeding ticket record remains for 3 years. So after 3 years, you start with a clean record again, and your insurance company won't charge you more for a speeding ticket which happened 4 or more years ago????


So it looks like my best option would be to admit that I'm guilty and ask for less fine and demerit points. Am I right?

I mean.. hiring a ticket fighter won't help me with my insurance rates. And I'll only have to pay $300 more until my record comes clean again, right?

Or does my speeding ticket remain forever and my insurance company forever charge me a couple of hundreds bucks more?
Newbie
Apr 9, 2017
12 posts
AB
Hello again. Due to some resolution issues (disclosure says-and-nays), I've found myself seeking the wisdom of this thread.

Long story short, the crown denied that they're required to disclose certain items – explanation for short-hands and/or abbreviations found in officer's notes, proof of device undergoing maintenance/calibration/what-have-you, certification showing officer is a qualified technician and/or operator, copy pages of manual involving operation and maintain of device... – and the JP suggested I track down case law that supports the relevancy of the material. While some can debated, certain things should have little ambiguity as to their significance. The CP did mention that a number of things requested would come up in the trial proper, but not before, so its not as if they're irrelevant given the implication of submitting them as evidence.

Would it happen that a person here know a way to try and deal with this? As I'm completely out of my element. Are there any case laws in-particular I should look for? And am I supposed to print them out for the sake of citation and/or proof? Given case law's seem to be on the long side (twenty plus pages), do I have to print out the entire transcript, or just the rulings at the end? Thank you for all the help so far — its a wonderful thread to have.
Newbie
Sep 26, 2014
20 posts
3 upvotes
North York, ON
ShrekTek wrote:
Aug 24th, 2017 11:17 pm
So for a summons, it does not usually show up in any system ahead of time because the officers do not have deadline to submit it. They can basically submit it the morning of trial if they really want to. And you do not ask for disclosure before a summons date.

A summons is NOT a trial date. You have to show up and tell them what you want to do:
(1) Just plead guilty and pay (not recommended), or
(2) Say you plan to plead not guilty, would like set a trial date and would like to get disclosure.

But here is a trick for all SUMMONS...

When you arrive at the court house, they usually have a list with everybody's names that are scheduled to appear that day. See if your name is on it. If it is, then officer submitted the summons and go check in with the prosecutor.

If your name is NOT on the list then there is a possibility that the officer did not submit the summons so you do not want to tell anybody that you got one. You need to go into court and just sit in the back row and watch and listen. If they ask you why you are there, you can just say you are there to just watch and observe. You then need to wait for them to go thru ALL the items they have. If they do call your name along the way then yes you should go up and identify yourself, but if they do not call your name then do not go up and do not tell them you got a summons. Even at the end of court if they say something like "Does anybody else have any matters to deal with?" then do NOT go up.

If your summons is not on their list and you do go up and tell them you have one, then they will put it on the list and deal with it. However if you just sit back and wait it out and they never call your name then that means it was not filed by officer and will be dropped if you dont mention it.
Never showed up in the court system, wasn't on the docket, and was never called up. Officer never filed. Thanks so much for your help!
Newbie
Sep 26, 2014
20 posts
3 upvotes
North York, ON
joshmxpx wrote:
Aug 25th, 2017 12:42 pm
This is all true and good info, but extremely rare the officer will forget to file unless quite incompetent or extended illness/injury...
Never filed, advice turned out to be great.
Deal Addict
Feb 20, 2014
1179 posts
413 upvotes
Toronto
I'm trying to help a friend fight a ticket.

She made a left turn during prohibited time, the sign was not visible. She wrote her councillor and actually got the sign moved to a more visible spot. She plans on using this as evidence during her trial.

I can vaguely recall that in order to introduce her evidence at trial, she needs to inform the prosecutor beforehand that she has evidence, in this case, pictures and a letter. Does anyone know where she can file the evidence? I thought I've seen addresses here but I can't find them anymore. Thanks!
Newbie
Feb 23, 2017
55 posts
4 upvotes
Oakville
harith86 wrote:
Sep 4th, 2017 7:14 pm
Hello,

I got a speeding ticket 10Kmh over limit (60 in 50Kmh zone) back in June. That was in Mississauga, ON,, my actual speed was about 68 and reduced to 60 by the officer. The officer told me as my record is totally clean, that is why he reduced it.

Right before I got caught, I was driving and approaching traffic lights, there was a car right behind me, traffic lights went amber, and I was having the cruise ON when I was driving 50Kmh, it was a downhill road so I turned off the cruise to pass the amber light, and also the car behind me was so close as they wanted to pass the amber as well, so I didn't hit the brakes to slow it down (as speed increased on downhill) in order to avoid any accident that could have happened when the car was behind me.

I took the ticket to court, the trial is on Sep 6th, the officer told me that they were trying to control speeding vehicles as they received complaints from the community about speeding vehicles in that zone.

At the court, I will say I plead not guilty, and I know that I was going over the speed, but I only did that for safety to avoid any sort of accident.

I'd like to know if my reason of speeding is valid and could be considered to not plead guilty.

Thank you,
Great news, the officer didn't show up and the ticket is now dismissed. However, the question still remains, Is the ticket gone forever? Would my insurance company know about it? Any sort of impact at all after the ticket dismissal?

Thanks,
Newbie
Sep 10, 2014
9 posts
3 upvotes
Toronto, ON
My experience in court

The prosecutor tries to persuade everyone to plead guilty. When one person said "not guilty" he raised his voice and said "you will be paying full fine if we go to trial"( this is not true, because even if you fail in your argument they would reduce the fine or points if you request. So it is worth a shot to go to trial.

Out of 25 people who were there 20 plead guilty and took an offer from the prosecutor. Only five went to trial. Two (including mine was dismissed) because of a technicality. The officer was present, but he said his notes were destroyed. And the prosecutor decided not to pursue
Member
Jun 15, 2017
273 posts
70 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
gushingtears wrote:
Sep 5th, 2017 8:07 am
I got a speeding ticket yesterday for driving 129km/h on highway 401 (100km/h).

It's 3 demerit points and the maximum fine is around $140.

I had a clean record before.

This is what I gathered from internet,

1. Your car insurance rates go up if you have conviction. It doesn't depend on how many demerit points you get.

2. Hiring a ticket fighter may reduce your demerit points and fine. But they won't be able to make you get away with conviction. So your insurance rates would go up even if your ticket fighter reduce your demerit points to zero. Also, in the end you pay more expense even with reduced fine, because you have to pay your ticket fighter, as well.

3. You can ask for a trial, which can take up to 1 year. But unlike US police, Canadian police most likely to show up on court with hard evidence.
So your chances of winning a trial is very unlikely

4. I'm with Statefarm. And it looks like they charge about $100 more for one speeding ticket a year???

5. Your speeding ticket record remains for 3 years. So after 3 years, you start with a clean record again, and your insurance company won't charge you more for a speeding ticket which happened 4 or more years ago????


So it looks like my best option would be to admit that I'm guilty and ask for less fine and demerit points. Am I right?

I mean.. hiring a ticket fighter won't help me with my insurance rates. And I'll only have to pay $300 more until my record comes clean again, right?

Or does my speeding ticket remain forever and my insurance company forever charge me a couple of hundreds bucks more?
1. Correct
2. Correct
3. Correct
4. No idea
5. Convictions remain on your record forever, however insurance uses the last 3 years to determine rates, so if you get ticket that raises rates then after three years the rate should go back down.

You do not need to hire a paralegal because as you said, it will cost you more money than you will save. So yes the Plead Guilty with an Explanation option would be worthwhile. The prosecutor MAY offer you a plea deal (although they are not required too), and maybe you will get them to drop to 15 over. Worst case is they do not offer you any deal, but you can still ask JP for reduced fine and extended time to pay.
--
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
Member
Jun 15, 2017
273 posts
70 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
SceneSavings wrote:
Sep 5th, 2017 6:49 pm
Hello again. Due to some resolution issues (disclosure says-and-nays), I've found myself seeking the wisdom of this thread.

Long story short, the crown denied that they're required to disclose certain items – explanation for short-hands and/or abbreviations found in officer's notes, proof of device undergoing maintenance/calibration/what-have-you, certification showing officer is a qualified technician and/or operator, copy pages of manual involving operation and maintain of device... – and the JP suggested I track down case law that supports the relevancy of the material. While some can debated, certain things should have little ambiguity as to their significance. The CP did mention that a number of things requested would come up in the trial proper, but not before, so its not as if they're irrelevant given the implication of submitting them as evidence.

Would it happen that a person here know a way to try and deal with this? As I'm completely out of my element. Are there any case laws in-particular I should look for? And am I supposed to print them out for the sake of citation and/or proof? Given case law's seem to be on the long side (twenty plus pages), do I have to print out the entire transcript, or just the rulings at the end? Thank you for all the help so far — its a wonderful thread to have.
When presenting case law you need to bring THREE full copies of whatever case law you want to present, even if you just want to reference one single sentence out of it.

As far as not getting explanation of short-hands and abbreviations, you shouldn't need case law, you just need to say "how can I properly prepare my defense if I do not know what the officers notes actually say?".

As far as all the other stuff, you won't get it. The case laws in Ontario do not support them giving it to you. You should complain about it anyways for appeal purposes, but you will not get it without being a very skilled at making these types of arguments in court. A few case laws won't help you without the skill to argue.

If you want to read case laws related to this though, then here you go:
R. v. Stinchcombe [1991] 3 SCR 326
R. v. Egger [1993] 2 SCR 451
R. v. Chaplin [1995] 1 SCR 727
R. v. Jackson, 2015 ONCA 832


And here is letter I have used before...


I would like to remind the prosecution of the following points:

1) The defendant has the right to make full answer and defence to the charge:
R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326 on page 7:
Pg 7 "The right to make full answer and defence is one of the pillars of criminal justice on which we heavily depend to ensure that the innocent are not convicted."

2) The defence has shown that the requested items meet the definition of 'relevant', which means that the requested items may be of some use to the defence, or that the requested items have a reasonable possibility of being useful to the accused in making full answer and defense:
R. v. Chaplin, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727 at paragraphs 22 and 30:
[22] "One measure of the relevance of information in the Crown's hands is its usefulness to the defence: if it is of some use, it is relevant and should be disclosed."
[30] "Relevance means that there is a reasonable possibility of being useful to the accused in making full answer and defence."

3) There is a reasonable possibility that withholding any of the requested items will impair the ability of the defendant to make full answer and defense, as the defence has already shown all requested items are potentially relevant:
R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326 on pages 7, 2 and 9:
Pg 7 "…there is the overriding concern that failure to disclose impedes the ability of the accused to make full answer and defence."
Pg 2 "The Crown's discretion is reviewable by the trial judge, who should be guided by the general principle that information should not be withheld if there is a reasonable possibility that this will impair the right of the accused to make full answer and defence."
Pg 9 "The trial judge on a review should be guided by the general principle that information ought not to be withheld if there is a reasonable possibility that the withholding of information will impair the right of the accused to make full answer and defence, unless the non-disclosure is justified by the law of privilege."

4) Relevant information includes any information in respect of which there is a reasonable possibility that it may assist the accused in the exercise of the right to make full answer and defence:
R. v. Jackson, 2015 ONCA 832 at paragraph 82:
[82] "... Relevant information includes not only information related to those matters the Crown intends to adduce in evidence against the accused, but also any information in respect of which there is a reasonable possibility that it may assist the accused in the exercise of the right to make full answer and defence"

5) The defence has shown there is some third party information outside of the Crown's control, that should be considered "obviously relevant" and fall under the first party Stinchcombe disclosure requirements:
R. v. Jackson, 2015 ONCA 832 at paragraphs 116 and 124:
[116] "In first party/Stinchcombe disclosure, “relevant” is characteristic of the material to be provided to an accused as “fruits of the investigation”. In addition, although it may not fall fairly within the ordinary sweep of “fruits of the investigation”, material that is “obviously relevant” to the defence case may need to be rustled up by the police, provided to the Crown and disclosed to the defence. Like the discipline records in McNeil."
[124] "The McNeil court uses the term “obviously relevant” to describe information that would not fall within the compass of “fruits of the investigation”, but would be of importance to the defence case. In McNeil, this information was police disciplinary records in the possession of a third party, the police department. Since it was “obviously relevant” to the credibility of the arresting officer and the reliability of his evidence, which was central to the prosecution’s case, McNeil imposed an obligation on the police to obtain these records and provide them to the prosecuting Crown. It imposed a correlative duty on the Crown to disclose them to the defence as part of the Crown’s Stinchcombe disclosure duty."

6) The Crown must err on the side of inclusion of requested items, unless it has clearly proven an item is irrelevant:
R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326 on page 9:
Pg 9 "While the Crown must err on the side of inclusion, it need not produce what is clearly irrelevant. The experience to be gained from the civil side of the practice is that counsel, as officers of the court and acting responsibly, can be relied upon not to withhold pertinent information. Transgressions with respect to this duty constitute a very serious breach of legal ethics."

7) The Crown has the burden to prove a requested item should not be disclosed:
R. v. Egger, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451 on page 11:
Pg 11 "The Crown's disclosure obligation is subject to a discretion, the burden of justifying the exercise of which lies on the Crown..."
--
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
Member
Jun 15, 2017
273 posts
70 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
sosyed wrote:
Sep 6th, 2017 6:02 pm
Never showed up in the court system, wasn't on the docket, and was never called up. Officer never filed. Thanks so much for your help!
Congratulations on the win Smiling Face With Open Mouth
--
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
Member
Jun 15, 2017
273 posts
70 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
Jenuine wrote:
Sep 6th, 2017 6:04 pm
I'm trying to help a friend fight a ticket.

She made a left turn during prohibited time, the sign was not visible. She wrote her councillor and actually got the sign moved to a more visible spot. She plans on using this as evidence during her trial.

I can vaguely recall that in order to introduce her evidence at trial, she needs to inform the prosecutor beforehand that she has evidence, in this case, pictures and a letter. Does anyone know where she can file the evidence? I thought I've seen addresses here but I can't find them anymore. Thanks!
No she does not need to provide anything ahead of time.
--
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
Member
Jun 15, 2017
273 posts
70 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
harith86 wrote:
Sep 6th, 2017 10:07 pm
Great news, the officer didn't show up and the ticket is now dismissed. However, the question still remains, Is the ticket gone forever? Would my insurance company know about it? Any sort of impact at all after the ticket dismissal?

Thanks,
If ticket was dismissed/withdrawn or you were found not guilty, then it is forever gone and will not show up on your record and insurance can not use it against you.
--
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
Member
Jun 15, 2017
273 posts
70 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
xylene567 wrote:
Sep 7th, 2017 7:45 am
My experience in court

The prosecutor tries to persuade everyone to plead guilty. When one person said "not guilty" he raised his voice and said "you will be paying full fine if we go to trial"( this is not true, because even if you fail in your argument they would reduce the fine or points if you request. So it is worth a shot to go to trial.

Out of 25 people who were there 20 plead guilty and took an offer from the prosecutor. Only five went to trial. Two (including mine was dismissed) because of a technicality. The officer was present, but he said his notes were destroyed. And the prosecutor decided not to pursue
Congratualtions on the win!

As far as prosecutor saying "you will be paying full fine if we go to trial" what they mean is that if your speeding ticket was reduced by officer at roadside, then if you go to trial and lose, it will be raised back up to the original higher speed. If the speeding ticket was not reduced by officer then they can not raise it higher and you have nothing to lose by going to trial. Only if it was reduced can they raise it back up, so depending on the reduction the officer gave you, it may not be worth fighting and losing.
--
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
May 24, 2008
52 posts
9 upvotes
Mississauga
Hi I received a ticket for follow too close after an accident and request for early resolution. Just received a letter stating that the provincial court refusing and voiding the ticket as the police officer filed outside of 7 days. And that the officer may reserve the offence notice at later date. What does that mean? Is that mean my ticket is voided ( unless the officer decide to file again?)

Top

Thread Information

There are currently 2 users viewing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)