OSMV or court system?
 

I hope this works right....but I would like to do a poll.

I may have missed it.... but what exactly is it that you're appealing?

Driving infractions. I would appeal in person if I could but for out of town tickets the phone is a great option.

Berz out.

Sorry about that...yes...driving infractions...in light of the new legislation the province wants to bring in....

If they're going to stack the odds even higher against you, they should at least eliminate pentalty points and the penalty point premiums for offences.

This is about the "efficient" processing of revenue by reducing the administrative costs and increasing the conviction rate. This isn't about fairness at all. If this was about fairness, they would allow you the option of disputing traffic tickets by either going to traffic court or dialing in. All the arguments about why they need a dial-in system (reducing wait times, cost of traveling to court, freeing up the court system) would also be improved by having presented this as a voluntary option. However, they present it as a REPLACEMENT for the courts for the simple reason that if they ran both programs side by side it would be pretty apparent that the conviction rate of the dial in program will be much higher than in traffic court. Soon, nobody would opt for the dial in program.

The reason why the conviction for the dial in program would be so much higher is because the OSMV has no business being considered an impartial, independent arbitrator. Consider a number of recent high profile cases that were subsequently overturned by a Provincial court hearing where judges cited a lack of evidence. I refer to the recent case of 12 super cars "racing" down why 99 where provincial court judges ruled that the OSMV had incorrectly suspended the licenses of 2 drivers when there was no evidence that they were breaking any laws at all. The OSMV ruled them Guilty by Association. That sounds more like the judgement of a kangaroo court than the proper justice system we'd expect in a free society.

Well put, Marco911.

But even going to court and going in front of a JP, the odds are stacked against you since it is your word vs the word of a police officer.
If he said you were doing 60 km/h and you said you were going 50 km/h in a 50 zone, guess what the end result will be?

How is that not fair? The officer is trained to estimate your speed and in most cases supports that training using a speed measuring device. The officer makes a far more credible witness than someone claiming he wasn't speeding with zero evidence.

If you want to win, you have to bring supporting evidence that you were not speeding or raise doubt in the officer's testimony. If you had a dashcam that registered your vehicle speed or evidence contrary to the testimony of the officer, that can be submitted as evidence, though you would also have to show that your device is accurately callibrated.

I always found the best defense was the officer not showing up.

However, sometimes they do make mistakes. One time I tried a charter argument, it didn't work out, so I ended the dispute before getting into the actual trial part (I wasn't about to embarrass myself with a bull**** excuse). Oddly, that sparked the justice's curiosity and he asked to hear the whole story. It turns out I received a 'Pass on the Right' in error, as you are in fact allowed to pass cars if you are in the right lane if they are in the left lane. So the justice dismissed that charge. Too bad I was passing at full tilt and still had the speeding penalty, but it was worth the trip to court!

Had a cool chat with the officer afterwards too. He had moved on to gang unit stuff and couldn't believe I was paying out more for speeding than most drug dealers he had busted.

My experience with the OSMV has always been heavy handed compared to a justice. I think everyone deserves their day in court. Where will they draw the line next?