Automotive

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

Newbie
Jan 6, 2007
6 posts
1 upvote
Markham
Hi ShrekTek:

I just found out this wonderful forum about fighting traffic ticket. Wish I know about it sooner.
My trial date is Dec 6th 2017, in two days.

I was driving 89km on a 60 km zone. Speed did not reduced on the charge.

Here are the details of my disclosure.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=11pVrc ... ebvy2dVIV6
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1tBSJh ... 7HGyYtNPUR

I also received a DVD footage.
The footage only contain the part where the officer use his siren and I drive to the shoulder. That is where his ask for my ID and issued the ticket.
Here is a map of where I think the officer was located and where the footage started.
He did not provide me footage where I was actually speeding.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=17EqVX ... qYQ5RTu-wi

My question are
1. What are the chance I will be dismissed at trial?
2. What are the chance the officer not show up that day?

Since it happened on 2016-11-01 and it is now over 1 year. Can I use that as one of my reason?

Hope I can hear from you soon.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 17, 2007
1746 posts
287 upvotes
Toronto & north …
v_westwood wrote:
Dec 4th, 2017 4:04 pm
I was alleged to have been driving 89km on a 60 km zone.
Fixed that for you.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 27, 2013
1643 posts
521 upvotes
Winnipeg
"136.(1) Every driver or street car operator approaching a stop sign at an intersection,
(a) shall stop his or her vehicle or street car at a marked stop line or, if none, then immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk or, if none, then immediately before entering the intersection; and ..."

I wonder how "at a marked line" is usually interpreted. Suppose there is a few car lineup at a 4-way stop intersection. If there is a car in front of me, I'll obviously stop behind it.. but if I then roll through the intersection, I suppose a ticket for failing to stop at a stop sign will be issued. Hence, I wonder if the defense that I did come to a complete stop behind a car in front of me will work. :) I bet it would work if it wasn't for this "shall stop.. at a marked stop line" line, but it seems that the prosecutor may argue that I did not stop at that line... Still, perhaps this line of defense can work if 1) there is no stop line, or 2) the car in front actually went over the stop line by 1/2 length or something..

Any comments?
Sr. Member
Jun 15, 2017
736 posts
163 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
v_westwood wrote:
Dec 4th, 2017 4:04 pm
Hi ShrekTek:

I just found out this wonderful forum about fighting traffic ticket. Wish I know about it sooner.
My trial date is Dec 6th 2017, in two days.

I was driving 89km on a 60 km zone. Speed did not reduced on the charge.

Here are the details of my disclosure.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=11pVrc ... ebvy2dVIV6
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1tBSJh ... 7HGyYtNPUR

I also received a DVD footage.
The footage only contain the part where the officer use his siren and I drive to the shoulder. That is where his ask for my ID and issued the ticket.
Here is a map of where I think the officer was located and where the footage started.
He did not provide me footage where I was actually speeding.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=17EqVX ... qYQ5RTu-wi

My question are
1. What are the chance I will be dismissed at trial?
2. What are the chance the officer not show up that day?

Since it happened on 2016-11-01 and it is now over 1 year. Can I use that as one of my reason?

Hope I can hear from you soon.
The officer will most likely be there. If you go to trial you will lose as the officers notes are good.

Best you can probably due is ask for a reduction. Ask for 15 over. Prosecutor has no obligation to offer you a reduction but might. They may not offer you 15 over but might offer you 20 or 25 over. Anyways 15 over or 29 over will affect your insurance the same, so might as well try and get reduction so fine is lower.
--
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
mbmbkop wrote:
Dec 4th, 2017 7:03 pm
"136.(1) Every driver or street car operator approaching a stop sign at an intersection,
(a) shall stop his or her vehicle or street car at a marked stop line or, if none, then immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk or, if none, then immediately before entering the intersection; and ..."

I wonder how "at a marked line" is usually interpreted. Suppose there is a few car lineup at a 4-way stop intersection. If there is a car in front of me, I'll obviously stop behind it.. but if I then roll through the intersection, I suppose a ticket for failing to stop at a stop sign will be issued. Hence, I wonder if the defense that I did come to a complete stop behind a car in front of me will work. :) I bet it would work if it wasn't for this "shall stop.. at a marked stop line" line, but it seems that the prosecutor may argue that I did not stop at that line... Still, perhaps this line of defense can work if 1) there is no stop line, or 2) the car in front actually went over the stop line by 1/2 length or something..

Any comments?
You need to stop AT the line, not before it.
--
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
Jan 6, 2007
6 posts
1 upvote
Markham
Thanks for your reply. I will update here tomorrow after trial is over.

BTW does it matter that the officer spelled Steeplechase Rd when it should be Steeplechase Ave.

If that is where he said he is, then he have to make a left turn to make me pull over. Is this a point worth bringing up?

I think he was located at Worthington Ave instead, but there is no way I can be sure.

Thanks
Sr. Member
Jun 15, 2017
736 posts
163 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
v_westwood wrote:
Dec 5th, 2017 1:31 pm
Thanks for your reply. I will update here tomorrow after trial is over.

BTW does it matter that the officer spelled Steeplechase Rd when it should be Steeplechase Ave.

If that is where he said he is, then he have to make a left turn to make me pull over. Is this a point worth bringing up?

I think he was located at Worthington Ave instead, but there is no way I can be sure.

Thanks
No, minor spelling mistakes are not an issue and won't help 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.
--
Newbie
Aug 11, 2015
31 posts
11 upvotes
Mississauga, ON
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'm sorry but that's total BS. It's obvious you're trying to promote your business but a legal representative is a waste of money. All you do is take the first plea deal the prosecution gives you, something I myself have easily done. You need to stop misleading people that a legal representative for a minor speeding ticket is needed. The only time I would agree that a legal representative is needed, is when someone has a major violation or is about to lose their licence because of demerit points.

I called a few places when I got my first ticket and when I asked them what they considered was winning, it was a reduced fine, aka a plea deal. When I told them that it isn't winning unless the ticket gets dropped, all of the sudden they stopped replying to me. Most of them are nothing more then used car salesmen trying to scam people out of $500, which is more then even the highest minor speeding ticket.
Newbie
Sep 17, 2017
3 posts
ShrekTek wrote:
Sep 18th, 2017 11:39 pm
Ask for a copy of officers notes, including meaning of all abbreviations used, and typed if it is hard to read/decipher. Also ask for make model serial number of radar/lidar used, and for a copy of the manual.

You would want to read officers notes before you can decide if there is a defense or not.

You can contact provincial offences office and fax or drop off request for a french trial instead.

Recall for stalling car is not an excuse to speed. This will not help you at all.
Hi,

So it's been two months. I sent in two requests (one each month) for disclosures and kept a photocopy of each. Nothing was sent to me. I've been extremely busy so I completely forgot to ask for a Stay which has to be submitted 15 days prior to the court. My court day is in 2 days so Thursday morning. I anticipate that the prosecutor will probably give me the evidence on the court day.

Therefore I was wondering what are my options? Can I show my requests of disclosures as proof of my due diligence and request another trial date? Also since this is my 1st offence and I do not have much knowledge on how these kind of things go, am I allowed to see if the police officer is present prior to requesting another trial date (such as in the waiting room)?

Thanks for the continuous help,
Newbie
Jun 29, 2017
3 posts
I have a trial this thursday Dec 7th, consists of 2 tickets, one being speeding and the other about my window tint.

I wanted to get more info about how the procedure in court goes because this is my first time and I'm a bit nervous really.

Will I have the chance to plead guilty or not guilty before actually stepping up, ive just changed my mind about my speeding ticket and I doubt Ill get a smaller infraction on it or not but id rather just pay if off instead of risking getting it increased? So I wanted to know if I could just plead guilty to one ticket and not guilty to the other, this being the one for my window tint.

Small backstory is that my dealership installed my window tints and told me that it was the LEGAL amount, and so I was okay with that. But unfortunately when I got pulled over the Officer did a test and said that the front 2 windows were in fact not legal. He told me to just remove my window tints at the front and take it to court and they should drop it. I removed it and everything and I took the best before/after photos I could, so my thought process was to plead guilty for the speeding infraction and not guilty to the window tint. Is that allowed? would I have to provide my photos as proof to clearly show that I did in fact remove the window tint? How would the procedure go ultimately?

Just a lot of questions and nervous thoughts in my head at the moment, hopefully someone could help out.
Thanks
Sr. Member
May 24, 2013
610 posts
99 upvotes
Previously posted about my speeding ticket (got caught by an airplane). I sent in the ticket saying I would like an early resolution meeting with the prosecutor. However, in hindsight, I regret this since there's no chance an ER would result in the ticket being eliminated. I think I'd just rather do the court date.

What are my options? Can I chance to a not guilty plea? Is there any harm going to an ER meeting (I.e. If I decline a plea deal, will that look bad in court)?

Finally, if there's way of changing to a trial now, does the prosecutor normally contact you when it's time to have the ER meeting?

Thanks in advance
Sr. Member
May 24, 2013
610 posts
99 upvotes
ShrekTek wrote:
Dec 3rd, 2017 12:16 pm
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 think I made a mistake regarding this, I did in fact choose to meet with the prosecutor. See my previous post (right above this one). Any advice?
Newbie
Apr 9, 2013
15 posts
Mississauga
joshmxpx wrote:
Nov 20th, 2017 9:14 pm
Glad to hear it went well.

Just FYI and for others, a judge rarely administers traffic court. It's usually a Justice of the Peace, and as such, would be correctly addressed as "Your Worship" (I know it sounds wierd)

Also good that you elected to wear a suit and be presentable, you wouldn't believe some of the outfits I've seen in court, everything from Mossy Oak top and bottom, to tank top basketball jerseys, to backwards caps and flop flops...
Duly noted. To be honest, I heard the paralegals use Your Worship but Your Honour somehow came out instead. Confused Face

Initially I was thinking to forgo a jacket + tie, and go in dress shirt, pants and shoes. Then I thought "I'm going to court. I need to dress up!" and elected to wear a suit. It just felt like the right thing to do.

Needless to say, I was the only defendant in a suit.
ShrekTek wrote:
Nov 21st, 2017 8:19 am
CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR WIN! :D
Thank you!
Newbie
Dec 3, 2017
11 posts
Thanks again
So i won't have to pay more penalty due to failing to prove my point in the court. Right?

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)