Automotive

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

Newbie
User avatar
Nov 5, 2012
22 posts
3 upvotes
Scarborough
ShrekTek wrote:
Oct 10th, 2017 12:12 pm
Call the Provincial Offences Office and ask the status of your ticket. If they have not processed it yet (they never get around to it right on day 15), then you still MIGHT be able to get a trial date.
Thanks for the response, i will do that now.

UPdate: I check online call https://secure.toronto.ca/CourtCaseLookUp/welcome.jsf, it looks like it still haven't being processed yet, so I will drop by tomorrow morning to see if i can get option3 or not. Thanks.
Sr. Member
May 10, 2006
898 posts
310 upvotes
Toronto
ShrekTek wrote:
Sep 13th, 2017 12:55 pm
You say you are worried about demerits, so 20 over is 3 demerits and 15 over is 0 demerits. But remember that demerits have nothing to do with INSURANCE increases... a 0 demerit speeding ticket will cause insurance to increase the same as a 3 demerit so there is no savings from an insurance point of view to get it reduced.

If your only goal is to try and get it reduced to 15 over with 0 demerits, then maybe early resolution will work for you.
So as long as I plead guilty, my insurance increases? What's the ballpark increase in the premium for something like this? I opted to go to trial and just waiting for the date. Is there any other way to prove in court that I am not guilty? It was an unsigned road and that was the first time I drove on that street so I assumed it's a 60km speed limit. But I don' know if that's even a valid argument.
Mobile: $40 - Telus Student 50 Plan MTM ($10 BYOD) - 500 mins anytime, eve/wknds @ 5PM, 5GB data, unl text, FAV10, CID and VM25
Cable/Internet: $104+tax - VIP, Gigabit, PVR, HD Box
Home Phone: $0 - Obi200/FPL with Google Voice (free call Can/US)
Sr. Member
Jul 2, 2007
800 posts
23 upvotes
Finally got my notice of trial... Failed to stop ticket was issued July 20th, 2017 in York and my court date is set for September 28th, 2018... Around 14 months or so. I haven't requested for disclosure yet but I'm guessing that won't delay my court date at all right?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
4949 posts
2445 upvotes
Edmonton
jigsatics wrote:
Oct 10th, 2017 5:10 pm
So as long as I plead guilty, my insurance increases? What's the ballpark increase in the premium for something like this? I opted to go to trial and just waiting for the date. Is there any other way to prove in court that I am not guilty? It was an unsigned road and that was the first time I drove on that street so I assumed it's a 60km speed limit. But I don' know if that's even a valid argument.
The default speed limit is 50 km/h inside a municipality (so your assumption is incorrect, and you should have known that from your driver training), so the fact that it was unsigned doesn't help you. And I think the point of the post you quoted is that as far as insurance is concerned, it probably doesn't matter much if you fight it or not. Your insurance will go up (or not) regardless (assuming you don't win your case). If you go see the prosecutor for an early resolution and end up taking a deal, it still counts as a ticket as far as your insurance goes.

You need to request disclosure and post that before anyone here can tell you how to prove in court that you're not guilty of speeding. But from what I can see, you're admitting that you're were speeding, so... The odds of you getting away scott-free is pretty slim, considering you'll be going up against a prosecutor and police officer who have likely done this a few times already.

C
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
4949 posts
2445 upvotes
Edmonton
malaujai wrote:
Oct 10th, 2017 5:25 pm
Finally got my notice of trial... Failed to stop ticket was issued July 20th, 2017 in York and my court date is set for September 28th, 2018... Around 14 months or so. I haven't requested for disclosure yet but I'm guessing that won't delay my court date at all right?
No, if you request disclosure now, they should have plenty of time to make it available to you...

C
Newbie
Oct 8, 2017
2 posts
1 upvote
Thanks for the quick reply. I called them and you're right they haven't got to it, and I was actually just able to book and early resolution meeting online via municipal website even though the 15 days had past.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 21, 2009
4222 posts
220 upvotes
Markham
ShrekTek wrote:
Oct 10th, 2017 12:08 pm
I always recommend fax as the easiest and fastest way to get it to them, but yes you could go in person to if you have the time.
I tried faxing multiple times over business hours but the line was always busy... Is this normal? If I go in person, do I provide them the same disclosure request and how long would the turnaround be?
Member
Jun 15, 2017
328 posts
78 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
Lovable wrote:
Oct 10th, 2017 9:01 pm
I tried faxing multiple times over business hours but the line was always busy... Is this normal? If I go in person, do I provide them the same disclosure request and how long would the turnaround be?
Make sure you have correct number and try at night when its not maybe so busy. Yes same thing if you go in person.

Turn around time could be as quick as two weeks or as long as not even having it ready for the trial date.
--
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
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 21, 2009
4222 posts
220 upvotes
Markham
ShrekTek wrote:
Oct 10th, 2017 9:15 pm
Make sure you have correct number and try at night when its not maybe so busy. Yes same thing if you go in person.

Turn around time could be as quick as two weeks or as long as not even having it ready for the trial date.
Yes, faxed to the following but consistently busy:

City Prosecutors' Office
60 Queen Street West
Old City Hall (Room 12E)
Fax No. 416-338-6986

Edit - with a fax, I would have confirmation of delivery (receipt), can I request the same at the office in person?
Newbie
Apr 9, 2017
12 posts
AB
ShrekTek wrote:
Sep 7th, 2017 8:19 am
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..."
Oh! So many details! Thank you! Smiling Face With Open Mouth Another thing, regarding disclosure: Is it unreasonable to ask for "...names, address', occupation or/and criminal records of those that provided the listed information (that being disclosure)..." on the request form? I was given the impression that it was.
Newbie
User avatar
Oct 7, 2017
2 posts
ShrekTek wrote:
Oct 9th, 2017 3:52 pm
Regardless of the "suspect" time frame, it is still under 18 months so therefore there is nothing you can do about it.

In reality, a Secton 7 argument (lack of disclosure) at your first appearance will never work as the caselaw says that the proper remedy is to adjourn it to another date and get prosecution to get you the disclosure (which they did by giving it to your brother).

However, if you can not read the officers writing, then you need to send another request to prosecution ASAP stating something like:
The officers notes that I received are very hard to read and appear to contain abbreviations that I do not understand. Please provide a typed copy of the notes along with the meaning of all abbreviations used so I can properly prepare my defense.

If they don't provide this to you, then you can argue at the next trial that they still have not provided you with disclosure as you can not prepare a defense without knowing what the case is against you, which requires you to be able to know what the officers notes say. Remember to file another Section 7 Charter argument before this trial date, which I recommend you do about 25 days before trial date so that you make sure the Attorney Generals get their notice on time.

I don't really see any charter violations against you personally, although if they don't get you typed notes you can read, then you will have section 7 one.

If you want to also try an 11b before the 18 months, it is possible but will take lots of work. You will also need to get 3 copies of transcripts of the first two court dates ($$$). Read this post:
https://forums.redflagdeals.com/ask-me- ... #p27683529
Thank you for the detailed reply. I definitely want to try to argue an 11b violation, even though my case is 7 days under the 18 month ceiling and the onus therefore shifts from the crown to me.

I took a look at the thread you mentioned. My understanding is that if I want to argue for an 11b stay, I have to successfully establish that:
1) I took meaningful steps that demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings, and
2) The case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

You mentioned that I'll have to get 3 copies of the transcripts of my previous two court appearances. Is this something that has changed with recent caselaw/the new 11b framework? I always thought that court transcripts only have to be ordered for any matter that is being appealed.

Would I file my 11b challenge the same way as my section 7 challenge (at least 25 days before trial), or is there now a different procedure for 11b challenges? I know that prior to the summer of 2016, most 11b challenges referred to the Askov and Morin decisions. I would appreciate some more insight on the best way to mount an 11b challenge and what steps I would have to take to ensure compliance with the new framework.

Thanks again for your assistance!
Member
Jun 15, 2017
328 posts
78 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
GoTJunkie wrote:
Oct 11th, 2017 1:52 pm
Thank you for the detailed reply. I definitely want to try to argue an 11b violation, even though my case is 7 days under the 18 month ceiling and the onus therefore shifts from the crown to me.

I took a look at the thread you mentioned. My understanding is that if I want to argue for an 11b stay, I have to successfully establish that:
1) I took meaningful steps that demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings, and
2) The case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

You mentioned that I'll have to get 3 copies of the transcripts of my previous two court appearances. Is this something that has changed with recent caselaw/the new 11b framework? I always thought that court transcripts only have to be ordered for any matter that is being appealed.

Would I file my 11b challenge the same way as my section 7 challenge (at least 25 days before trial), or is there now a different procedure for 11b challenges? I know that prior to the summer of 2016, most 11b challenges referred to the Askov and Morin decisions. I would appreciate some more insight on the best way to mount an 11b challenge and what steps I would have to take to ensure compliance with the new framework.

Thanks again for your assistance!
You file all charter challenges the same way, whether section 7 or 11b.

In order for JP to determine if there has been an 11b violation, they need copies of all the prior transcripts to determine who's fault each delay was. And yes you need to prove the 2 things you metioned above. For the second one ("The case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have"), I am not sure how you can prove this and am not aware (yet) of anybody who has successfully done it. The only thing I can think of is that the previous number was 10 months, so if this took 17 months, that seems to be markedly longer than it used to take. Probably need to find out caselaw where old 10 month number came from and review it for hints.
--
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
Sr. Member
Jul 2, 2007
800 posts
23 upvotes
CNeufeld wrote:
Oct 10th, 2017 5:26 pm
No, if you request disclosure now, they should have plenty of time to make it available to you...

C
Thanks. Is there an appropriate timeframe that I should apply for the disclosure in that case?
Member
Jun 15, 2017
328 posts
78 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
malaujai wrote:
Oct 11th, 2017 10:56 pm
Thanks. Is there an appropriate timeframe that I should apply for the disclosure in that case?
Always make your request as soon as possible as it looks better for you if they don't get it to you on time. Check in every couple months to see if it is ready.

The prosecution does not have to send it to you, although some may mail it and some may email it and some may fax it if you ask. If they won't do any of those, then you need to go pick it up in person.

Remember it is YOUR responsibility to see if it is ready. Prosecution does not have to tell you it is ready. Their ONLY obligation is to get it ready for you and nothing else.
--
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
Oct 11, 2017
1 posts
Hi, I got a question for disputing parking ticket, When I requested a trial option is it possible for them to charge me for other things like sticker expired?

Top

Thread Information

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

chinosuave