Automotive

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

Member
User avatar
Aug 13, 2004
352 posts
19 upvotes
Toronto
OTDLegal wrote:
Nov 30th, 2017 11:46 am
Correct. At 25 km/h over the posted speed limit, the offence would carry 3 demerit points. Depending on jurisdiction, option 2 or 3 would be the most common filings depending on the local court process. Early resolution meetings are an opportunity for the defence and prosecution to sit down for an informal review of evidence to ideally reach consensus over who would reasonably win the trial based on the merits of the prosecution's evidence. Generally, if the case is a clear-cut defence trial the Prosecutor would simply agree to withdraw the offence on the trial date (you still need to attend). If the matter would clearly, or likely, go in the favour of the Prosecutor winning at trial, then negotiating to a lesser offence may be the better route to go. If no mutually agreeable resolution can be reached, then the matter will be resolved by way of trial.

Being an absolute liability offence, what you've described is not a defence. However, that does not preclude other defences being available to you at trial.

Thanks @OTDLegal

Thanks - I'm mostly interested in making sure my insurance isn't impacted. Do you think "negotiating to a lesser offence" would reduce impact to my insurance?
Basically I don't care about the demerits or the fine - this is the first time I've ever been pulled over in 20 years of driving. Would like to wrap this up as quick as possible and not have my rates increase.

Thanks once again
Jr. Member
User avatar
Oct 2, 2016
190 posts
23 upvotes
FJ2067 wrote:
Nov 30th, 2017 12:00 pm
Thanks - I'm mostly interested in making sure my insurance isn't impacted. Do you think "negotiating to a lesser offence" would reduce impact to my insurance?
Basically I don't care about the demerits or the fine - this is the first time I've ever been pulled over in 20 years of driving. Would like to wrap this up as quick as possible and not have my rates increase.
Generally, most insurers will group 0 or 3 point Speeding offences together as minor offences for risk assessment. Some may even include 4 demerit point speeding offences as being a minor offence. Depending on jurisdiction and Prosecutor it may be possible to negotiate to a non-moving violation. For insurance questions, your broker is licenced and experienced to field specific questions about your policy.
OTD Ticket Defenders Legal Services. The content of this message is not meant to be legal advice.
Member
Jun 15, 2017
344 posts
80 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
Vicky2010 wrote:
Nov 29th, 2017 9:48 pm
Hi. Here is my situation and I hope someone can advise.

My wife got a speeding ticket for going 70 in 50 zone and due to nervousness was unable to find the insurance card that was in the car. We got a trial date coming up and have got a disclosure as per below. Can you give some advise on how to tackle this situation. I am not worried about the insurance card as we have been paying insurance forever with no missed payments and have the insurance card that shows we had insurance coverage. Can you find any mistake in the disclosure? If they correct something on their notes, do they need to have their initials on it?

(removed the date in pic1 due to privacy reasons)
Your text to link here...

Thanks.
In Ontario?

The disclosure is hard to read. Is there information about radar/lidar device used and when they tested the device?

As far as Failing To Produce Insurance card, a lot of times the prosecutor may offer to drop this charge if you plead guilty to the speeding ticket.

If you take the charge to trial you will lose... the charge is for Not Providing An Insurance Card (completely unrelated to not having insurance). She did not provide the card, so is guilty.
--
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
344 posts
80 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
Happy2017 wrote:
Nov 29th, 2017 10:01 pm
Hi ShrekTek,
Do I need to show that I made reasonable effort to stop but I could not so I passed the stop line on yellow light? I think they may ask why I did not stop for the amber light. Will this impact my defense even though the charge was failed to stop at red light? Any suggestions on how to answer these type of questions.

Thanks a lot!
No. The charge is for passing the white line on a red. If you passed it when it was yellow then you are not guilty of the charge. Your reason for not stopping or slowing down is irrelevent.
--
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
344 posts
80 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
FJ2067 wrote:
Nov 30th, 2017 11:15 am
Hi @ShrekTek

Got a speeding ticket for overtaking an erratic driver (the driver had his left turn signal on for some reason while in the left lane on a bridge). Speed up to go around them and was clocked 75km in a 50km zone (I'm sure that spot must be a common speed trap, since it's a long bridge)
Officer gave me a ticket $118.75 + 3 demerits.

3 options:


1) plea guilty and pay

2) early resolution - meet with prosecutor ------- What's the point of this? Is it worthwhile?

3) request trial to plead not guilty

Thanks!
Most of the time I find option 2 to be a waste of time as you can meet with the prosecutor before trial and discuss plea deals then as well.

FYI Passing somebody because they were driving erratic is not a defense to speeding.
--
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
344 posts
80 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
FJ2067 wrote:
Nov 30th, 2017 12:00 pm
Thanks @OTDLegal

Thanks - I'm mostly interested in making sure my insurance isn't impacted. Do you think "negotiating to a lesser offence" would reduce impact to my insurance?
Basically I don't care about the demerits or the fine - this is the first time I've ever been pulled over in 20 years of driving. Would like to wrap this up as quick as possible and not have my rates increase.

Thanks once again
Insurance does not look at demerits points, so 0 demerit speeding (1 to 15 over) and 3 demerit speeding (16 to 29 over) has the exact same consequences as far as insurance goes which means it may cause an increase. And prosecutors are not allowed to offer plea deals from speeding to a different charge... they can only over a reduction on the speed.

So if insurance increase is what you want to avoid then you will need to try and beat the ticket at trial. Most self-represented people will lose if they try to do this. Most paralegals are not interested in taking speeding to trial because they can't usually beat it. There would need to be significant problems with officers notes to beat it at trial, OR you need to hire a paralegal and an expert witness that can testify to the issues with radar/lidar.
--
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
344 posts
80 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
Happy2017 wrote:
Nov 30th, 2017 3:18 pm
Thanks so much. Hopefully I have good news on the trail next week. :O)
Yes hope you have fun on the trail (watch out for bears), and also hope your trial goes well too! lol
--
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
User avatar
Oct 2, 2016
190 posts
23 upvotes
ShrekTek wrote:
Nov 30th, 2017 3:47 pm
And prosecutors are not allowed to offer plea deals from speeding to a different charge... they can only over a reduction on the speed.

So if insurance increase is what you want to avoid then you will need to try and beat the ticket at trial. Most self-represented people will lose if they try to do this. Most paralegals are not interested in taking speeding to trial because they can't usually beat it. There would need to be significant problems with officers notes to beat it at trial, OR you need to hire a paralegal and an expert witness that can testify to the issues with radar/lidar.
Your assertion regarding the amendment of speeding offences would be incorrect. What are you basing this opinion on?

There would generally be no benefit to a defendant or a paralegal to hire an expert witness on a Speeding matter as anything provided by a court-recognized expert-witness is already supported by established case law.

Taking a Speeding offence to trial is often times a poor legal decision as the likely outcome should be fairly evident after a review of evidence with the Prosecutor. If the case is a clear cut defence matter, there should be agreement to have the charge withdrawn on the trial date. If the case is a clear cut Prosecution case, negotiate to a lesser offence. If there is no agreeable resolution or if the defendant wants trial only, then you run the trial.
OTD Ticket Defenders Legal Services. The content of this message is not meant to be legal advice.
Member
Jun 15, 2017
344 posts
80 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
OTDLegal wrote:
Nov 30th, 2017 4:11 pm
Your assertion regarding the amendment of speeding offences would be incorrect. What are you basing this opinion on?
I suppose you are correct and I may be incorrect... I am basing it on the fact that I have never seen a prosecutor offer something other than reduced speed on a speeding ticket, but maybe they could offer a different charge if they wanted to.

What I am probably thinking of is that they cannot offer to change a speeding ticket from charging the DRIVER to charging the VEHICLE OWNER instead.
--
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
344 posts
80 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
OTDLegal wrote:
Nov 30th, 2017 4:11 pm
There would generally be no benefit to a defendant or a paralegal to hire an expert witness on a Speeding matter as anything provided by a court-recognized expert-witness is already supported by established case law.
I completely disagree.

The purpose of an expert witness is to bring unbiased information to the court so the JP can make a better informed decision. An expert witness possesses special knowledge and experience going beyond that of the trier of fact. (see R. v. Beland, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 398, at p.415)

In Ontario, they simply take at face value the officers statement that they are a qualified operator and that they believe the device was working properly at the time. Even cross-examination of the officer on these points is mostly useless because the court will say "there is no statuatory requirement as to what a qualified operator is, so they say they were trained, so it must be true".

The only way to you can beat it, is for the defence to put their own expert on the stand who can explain why the device has a very good chance of NOT being accurate (since they are NEVER calibrated in Ontario).

I would argue that the caselaw for speeding does NOT contain all the proper facts that it needs, and caselaw supports my position on the need for an expert witness in order to bring contradictory evidence.

R v Antunes 2004 ONCJ 352 (appeal)
[5] ...barring any evidence elicited by the defence to challenge that inference.
[7] The defence was not able to challenge the officer's perception of his speedometers accuracy...

R v Chau [2006] O.J. No. 5508 (appeal)
[8] ...he has no evidence through cross-examination by defence witnesses that would suggest it [the speedometer] was inaccurate...

R v Xu 2012 ONCJ 278 (appeal)
[Page 7] It is also important to remember that contradictory evidence is one of the most important factors to consider in weighing evidence.
[Page 10] There is nothing specific by way of cross-examination or contrary evidence to undermine the officer’s evidence as to the proper functioning of the machine.
[Page 12] ...but that the evidence might be shaken on cross-examination or by contrary evidence as to the speed.
[Page 13] no contrary evidence.
[Page 17] There was no contradictory evidence brought forward by the accused

R v Kleiner 2008 ONCJ 159 (appeal)
[HELD] There was no evidence that cast doubt on the qualification of the officer as a qualified radar operator.
[17] ...the defence had presented no evidence to challenge the evidence of the reliability of the radar speedmeter device for identifying the speed of a vehicle on the highway.
[21] There was no challenge with respect to the accuracy of the tests.
[24] l there is no evidence that cast doubt on the qualification of Constable Marsh as a qualified radar operator.

NOTE ON SPEEDOMETERS:
As a side note, some of these cases refer to R v Bland as the "speedometer caselaw". There are several problems with R v Bland. The first being that a speedometer holding a steady speed over a certain distance has absolutely NO bearing on whether the speedomter is actually accurate or not. The second is that R v Bland is referring to mechanical speedometers, and since the very early 2000's all vehicles now use electronic speedometers.

NOTE ON RADAR/LIDAR:
It is a fallacy to believe that just because two things give the same reading, that they must be accurate. So if checking a radar against a speedometer gives a matching reading, does not prove that either the radar or the speedometer are accurate. It simply proves that both are equally inaccurate. Only if one of them of them has been calibrated against a known standard, can you say it is accurate. This is the scientific field of Metrology (not to be confused with Meteorology).

NOTE ON ELECTRONICS:
All electronic devices (which include speedometers, radar and lidar) are subject to electronic drift which causes them to become less accurate over time. Electronic devices need to be re-calibrated on a regular basis (1 year is a good recommendation) to make sure they are still within their accuracy range (tolerance). Comparing one un-calibrated device reading to another un-calibrated device reading does not prove accuracy.
--
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
Nov 30, 2017
1 posts
If I fight a speeding ticket and lose - in alberta - is there a possibility of getting slapped with court fees on top of the ticket penalty?
Jr. Member
User avatar
Oct 2, 2016
190 posts
23 upvotes
ShrekTek wrote:
Nov 30th, 2017 9:29 pm
I completely disagree.
A trained and regulated legal representative should provide a defendant with a rational and cost-effective defence. This would not seem to be a cost-effective advantage at court, however I would certainly be willing to have myself or one of my staff discuss it with you. I looked at your website at did not see your name, address, or telephone number to contact you. If you'd like to provide that via private email I'd be happy to review any such benefit.

I would have some initial questions. What is your professional training and experience to qualify as an expert witness in this subject matter? What jurisdictions have you appeared before and which Justice(s) have recognized you as an expert witness?
OTD Ticket Defenders Legal Services. The content of this message is not meant to be legal advice.
Sr. Member
May 24, 2013
574 posts
98 upvotes
Got dinged for going 130 in a 100 on the 401 by the air patrol. A cop then stopped me informing that he got word from Air patrol and then gave me a ticket. Although I know I wasn't cruising at that speed (120 max), I may have been going 130 at one point, but can't remember for sure.

Any advice regarding arguing speeding tickets from Air patrol?

Top

Thread Information

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

ontheDB