Automotive

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

Sr. Member
Jun 15, 2017
736 posts
163 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.
--
Sr. Member
Jun 15, 2017
736 posts
163 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.
--
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
608 posts
96 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?
Sr. Member
Jun 15, 2017
736 posts
163 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
OTDLegal wrote:
Dec 1st, 2017 12:30 pm
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?
I agree that for most people, it is not going to be a cost effective solution to hire a paralegal to take a speeding ticket to trial and additionally hire an expert witness on top of that. With MINOR speeding infractions, most people may see an increase in insurance that is probably less than $500 over a 3-year period, so the cost of trial + expert witness would most likely exceed that (with no guarantee of a win).

However if DEMERITS are an issue that could lead to suspension, or the ticket is considered SERIOUS (like speeding 50+ or stunt driving) which could lead to huge increases in insurance, then it may the only worthwhile a defendant has to try.

I was not suggesting that everybody should hire an expert witness to appear on their behalf in every speeding trial. What I am suggesting though, is that the one way you can beat a speeding ticket where the officer has good notes and there does not appear to be any defeciencies/defects in the prosecutions case, is to hire an expert witness that can bring contradictory evidence to the officers testimony. Good/proper contradictory evidence is the key to showing that just because an officer believes their radar/lidar is accurate does not mean it is.

I have mentioned it in previous threads that I am a qualified radar/lidar instructor and a qualified radar/lidar technician with 20 years experience working in electronics. I have not yet testified before any court as an expert witness, but am highly interested in doing so. I am very interested in finding a paralegal that is willing to try and beat speeding tickets (when it is a cost effective solution for their customer) that I can work with.

I will send you an PM shortly.

Thanks
--
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.
--
Sr. Member
Jun 15, 2017
736 posts
163 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
theBasher91 wrote:
Dec 2nd, 2017 10:09 am
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?
What province?

In a case where one officer sees you speeding and another one stops you and gives you a ticket, they BOTH have to appear in court to testify. If one of them is not there, the ticket should get dropped.

You should plead Not Guilty and request a trial with ALL officers present. Once you get your notice of trial, you can request disclosure (copy of notes from ALL officers involved).
Last edited by ShrekTek on Dec 2nd, 2017 1:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
--
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.
--
Sr. Member
May 24, 2013
608 posts
96 upvotes
ShrekTek wrote:
Dec 2nd, 2017 1:35 pm
What province?

In a case where one officer sees you speeding and another one stops you gives you a ticket, they BOTH have to appear in court to testify. If one of them is not there, the ticket should get dropped.

You should plead Not Guilty and request a trial with ALL officers present. Once you get your notice of trial, you can request disclosure (copy of notes from ALL officers involved).
Thanks for the informative reply, I had no idea both were required. This occurred in Ontario (close to Windsor) last sunday (6 days ago).
Sr. Member
Jun 15, 2017
736 posts
163 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
theBasher91 wrote:
Dec 2nd, 2017 1:37 pm
Thanks for the informative reply, I had no idea both were required. This occurred in Ontario (close to Windsor) last sunday (6 days ago).
Once you get notes, post them back here so we can review their case.
--
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.
--
Sr. Member
May 24, 2013
608 posts
96 upvotes
ShrekTek wrote:
Dec 2nd, 2017 8:31 pm
Once you get notes, post them back here so we can review their case.
Will do, thanks. First time going to a prosecutor. Should bring a notepad/laptop for notetaking?
Sr. Member
Jun 15, 2017
736 posts
163 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
theBasher91 wrote:
Dec 2nd, 2017 8:43 pm
Will do, thanks. First time going to a prosecutor. Should bring a notepad/laptop for notetaking?
Why are you going to see prosecutor? Did you choose the early resolution meeting option?

I suggest you plead Not Guilty and request a trial with officers present option instead..

Regardless whenever going to provincial offences or court you should always take notes.
--
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.
--
Sr. Member
Jul 20, 2009
599 posts
93 upvotes
Toronto
I requested disclosure a few months ago and never got a response (paid for tracking). With my court date in January, should I request again?
Newbie
Dec 3, 2017
11 posts
Hi djino,

This is an old thread but I hope you are still there and can answer my questions.

I've got a ticket for failing to stop at a stop sign; I guess my stop at stop sing was not long enough. I'd like to plea this ticket, so, I am going to request a trial date, but can you tell me what happens if I lose the case in the court? What is the worst thing that one could expect?

Thank you for your useful information.
Sr. Member
Jun 15, 2017
736 posts
163 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
P0rkchop wrote:
Dec 4th, 2017 10:46 am
I requested disclosure a few months ago and never got a response (paid for tracking). With my court date in January, should I request again?
In Ontario call the Prosecutors office and ask if they received your request and if it is ready yet.
--
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.
--
Sr. Member
Jun 15, 2017
736 posts
163 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
reredflag wrote:
Dec 4th, 2017 11:52 am
Hi djino,

This is an old thread but I hope you are still there and can answer my questions.

I've got a ticket for failing to stop at a stop sign; I guess my stop at stop sing was not long enough. I'd like to plea this ticket, so, I am going to request a trial date, but can you tell me what happens if I lose the case in the court? What is the worst thing that one could expect?

Thank you for your useful information.
In Ontario the worst thing that can happen is that you learned something about how our (un)justice system works, and you still have to pay the same fine you had to pay before.

Remember that falling to stop at a stop sign has nothing to do with how long you stopped for. Your vehicle must come to a complete stop BEFORE the white line (or before entering the intersection if no white line). The length of time only needs to be a fraction of second as long as you stopped completely.
--
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.
--

Top

Thread Information

There are currently 3 users viewing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)