You need to read this if you have any traffic ticket especially for speeding!!!!!!!!!

[birdie92k]

B]WOW[/B] This is by far the best page I've read if you want to fight a ticket. It's all Ontario related but some of this info can be applied in any province and even in the U.S. It has great info on how to present your case, what rights you have and more. Best thing is that you can download it as a pdf file so you have it when trial time comes around P.S..All credit to FYST (fight your speed ticket) @ http://www.magma.ca/~fyst I'd have posted the entire document but it's pretty big but extremely useful. Hopefully this can be stickied as a pdf or something.

[vgonchar]

It is so good - the book has to be handed out together with driver's licence to each driver!

Thank you birdie92k and magma.ca

[darkdrgn2k]

Hey Guys,

I just came accross this link today, and i think its really smart. For those of you that really liked FYST but tought it was a little outdated. Best part is this new site is actualy a WIKI, which means we can all contribute and make it better then FYST.

For those that dont know: This is a repository of information on how to fight your traffic ticket, including information about conducting your own trial, filling the right paperwork, charters and much much more.

www.mytrafficticketdefence.com

It kinda make sence, that since the law is constatly changing, that FYST transform into a WIKI.

[traffic_donkey]

QUick question. When you go through the whole procedure? Can you continue to say "I'd like to strike a motion to drop the charge based on ________________" and then when everything else fails, such as all the procedural errors, then you present your defence?

I guess to reword my question. If I have a valid defense such us "I had to speed to overtake the vehicle otherwise it was not safe to do so" or any other defense however I want to first challenge the ticket based on procedural errors and benefit of the doubt, how should I go about it?


Thanks

[darkdrgn2k]

Originally Posted by traffic_donkey

QUick question. When you go through the whole procedure? Can you continue to say "I'd like to strike a motion to drop the charge based on ________________" and then when everything else fails, such as all the procedural errors, then you present your defence?

I guess to reword my question. If I have a valid defense such us "I had to speed to overtake the vehicle otherwise it was not safe to do so" or any other defense however I want to first challenge the ticket based on procedural errors and benefit of the doubt, how should I go about it?


Thanks

The first problem with that satement is
"I had to SPEED"
...ooops.. you just admitted guilt... not much of a defence.

But to answer your question, the way it works is like thist (and remember speeding tickets are heard SOOO many times and JPs are NOT real judges, that a GREAT defence has probably been through the mill before)

Charter Issues (ie took too long) is brought before the court BEFORE the trial begins, if the charter is to succeed (which is about a 50% chance) usualy the prosecution wont waste time with it if they realize it wont succeed... and not take it to triall...

If it goes to trial, before you start with the evidance.. you ask that the charges be stayed based on the charter you have filed

(see http://www.mytrafficticketdefence.com/index.php/CHARTER_11B "At The Tial" and reffer to the order of things in http://www.mytrafficticketdefence.com/index.php/The_Trial )

Beyond that you have one shot..... just one... and that is "reasnable doubt"


Read Understanding the Charge
http://www.mytrafficticketdefence.com/index.php/Understanding_the_Charge

To be convicted, you must simply meet all the criteria of "speeding" from the HTA,

* you were driving a motor vehicle on or about the time, date and place when the offence occurred.

* you were travelling on a provincial/city highway/street.

* you were exceeding the posted speed limit.

Notice there is no "Why you did what you did"


IF you still think you have a valid defence, talk to a licensed paralegal. Their consultations are usualy free and will give you an idea from some one woh GOES to court of what you can or cant do. Find one at Im In Trouble.CA they have them listed by Court of offence.

[ticketcombat]

Originally Posted by traffic_donkey

QUick question. When you go through the whole procedure? Can you continue to say "I'd like to strike a motion to drop the charge based on ________________" and then when everything else fails, such as all the procedural errors, then you present your defence?

I guess to reword my question. If I have a valid defense such us "I had to speed to overtake the vehicle otherwise it was not safe to do so" or any other defense however I want to first challenge the ticket based on procedural errors and benefit of the doubt, how should I go about it?

Speeding is an absolute liability offence which means you have only 3 types of defences available:

• defence of involuntariness
• defence of causation
• defence of necessity
  

I explain these defences on my site (ticketcombat.com): Absolute Liability Offences

What kinds of motions to make and when to make them (before and after arraignment) are covered here: Motions, Arraignments And Pleas

A general introduction to trial procedure can be found here: Trial Strategies

And another great site is FYST

[D-BesT]

good luck bringing up charter arguments for a speeding ticket. even an 11b... unless if it's ajurned on the crown side, u'll NEVER win it.

[ticketcombat]

Charter arguments are based on different sections of the Charter. Using section 24(1) you apply for a stay as the only remedy to the infringement of your rights. What rights are infringed?

• 7 - right to disclosure to make full answer and defence is a principle of fundamental justice. You must have disclosure of all the evidence before the trial. If you don't get it, you can apply for a stay. If you have to go to court to get the judge to order disclosure, you can apply for costs.
• 11a - right to be informed of the offence. A good disclosure request will ask for an explanation and clarification of the charge. If you don't get it, request a stay!
• 11b - unreasonable delay of over 18 months. This is getting harder to secure in Ontario because the courts are becoming more efficient at getting you to trial in time.
• 11d - fair trial. Evidence that is obtained unfairly or violates your rights cannot be used against you. For example, roadside breathalyser tests cannot be used to convict you of drunk driving. They can be used to justify an "approved instrument test".

There are other sections that can be used to your advantage as well. 11b is the section most people know about but don't know how to use it to their advantage even when the time is less than 18 months. So yes, a lot of people loose. And frankly they loose because they do not have access to the research or were unable to make the argument properly.

On this last point is where I depart from FYST. It's a great site but it is many years out of date and it hasn't kept up with the case law. So some of the arguments are no longer valid. This is one of the reasons why I built www.ticketcombat.com

[Mazdazoom]

Originally Posted by ticketcombat

Charter arguments are based on different sections of the Charter. Using section 24(1) you apply for a stay as the only remedy to the infringement of your rights. What rights are infringed?

• 7 - right to disclosure to make full answer and defence is a principle of fundamental justice. You must have disclosure of all the evidence before the trial. If you don't get it, you can apply for a stay. If you have to go to court to get the judge to order disclosure, you can apply for costs.
• 11a - right to be informed of the offence. A good disclosure request will ask for an explanation and clarification of the charge. If you don't get it, request a stay!
• 11b - unreasonable delay of over 18 months. This is getting harder to secure in Ontario because the courts are becoming more efficient at getting you to trial in time.
• 11d - fair trial. Evidence that is obtained unfairly or violates your rights cannot be used against you. For example, roadside breathalyser tests cannot be used to convict you of drunk driving. They can be used to justify an "approved instrument test".

There are other sections that can be used to your advantage as well. 11b is the section most people know about but don't know how to use it to their advantage even when the time is less than 18 months. So yes, a lot of people loose. And frankly they loose because they do not have access to the research or were unable to make the argument properly.

On this last point is where I depart from FYST. It's a great site but it is many years out of date and it hasn't kept up with the case law. So some of the arguments are no longer valid. This is one of the reasons why I built www.ticketcombat.com

damn .. ur website is amazing .. will definately come in handy.. Thanks!