REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

vanLUDERCity · 05-18-2010, 10:59 AM

Alright so, well over a YEAR ago, march 17th 2009 to be exact, i received a ticket for speeding, i disputed it, and just NOW they send me a hearing notice, the hearing is still over two months away, my question is, isnt there a time limit on how long they can wait to set a date? i know there is a law that limits the time they have, cause i barely even remember what happened.

zulutango · 05-18-2010, 11:44 AM

That is not out of the nornmal time range in LMD. Question the JP may ask you about the point you raised. Seeing you knew within 30 days that you were going to dispute the charge, why did you not make notes at that time, or some time between then and now, when you are bringing it up? A failure on your part to exercise "due diligence" should not count in your favour. That is probably what he will say and we at RS will likely ask.

sho_bc · 05-18-2010, 12:18 PM

I recently attended traffic court for tickets I issued in January 2009. Your wait isn't unreasonable relative to everyone else.

aznrsx1979 · 05-18-2010, 12:26 PM

I'm not sure if there is a certain time limit they have to set a date but it does typically take about a year or so. When I went to dispute a ticket for running a yellow light, I had to wait about 14 months before I went in.

vanLUDERCity · 05-18-2010, 12:46 PM

wow, this is the biggest bullshit ever. i got a ticket in the states, and boom, in 3 weeks i was in court. i know i have the right to a swift and speedy trial. and this was not swift or speedy.

xpl0sive · 05-18-2010, 12:50 PM

there were a few cases where tickets were dismissed due to a long waiting time... last i heard it was around 15 or 17 months... not sure though.

vanLUDERCity · 05-18-2010, 12:53 PM

well im gonna argue the hell out of it, cause it would have been 16 months...

sho_bc · 05-18-2010, 12:58 PM

In that case, you need to submit a charter argument which won't be heard by the JJP in traffic court. Please search for the details of that process.

xpl0sive · 05-18-2010, 01:10 PM

here's a case you can use for precedent. make sure you read it over a few times and make sure it applies. it also mentions a few other cases... seems after after roughly 14 months if you can show that you have been prejudiced by the delay, the courts will grant a Stay of Proceedings

http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.d...009bcpc57.html

xpl0sive · 05-18-2010, 01:21 PM

here's another case that you can use for your information...

http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.d...09bcpc135.html

xpl0sive · 05-18-2010, 01:23 PM

some useful quotes:
"[22] I find that in this case Mr. Podger did experience some actual prejudice as a result of the delay. By this I mean that as a result of waiting so long to advise him of when the hearing would take place, Mr. Podger had put the matter from his mind, thinking it was not going to be dealt with. As well, he then had to consider his position, having received the notice after so much time after the actual incident. I find this did cause a stress to him and also caused him to lose some days of work in preparing for this matter. "

"[24] I find that the applicant has made out all the elements from the Morin decision with respect to what I must consider to find there has been an unreasonable delay. I find that in this case, 13 months and three weeks is an unreasonable delay to get from the date of the offence, of such a minor offence, to a hearing. "

"[27] It appears to me that the government has decided to save financial resources by somehow operating a central system for dealing with ticket disputes which it appears has led to a long delay in the matters being heard before the court. I accept what the Supreme Court of Canada said that individuals who are dealing with minor offences should not have to compromise their right to a speedy trial because the government decides it is going to do what is most efficient for them, without taking into account the stress and prejudice this brings to individuals dealing with what are in many cases very minor traffic offences in many cases, which is specifically the case here.

[28] Therefore, I find that the delay is unreasonable in all the circumstances and a judicial stay of proceedings is appropriate. I direct a judicial stay of proceedings be entered in this matter."

vanLUDERCity · 05-18-2010, 06:32 PM

thanks for the replies, i searched about the charter complaint, and all i have to do is go down to robson court house, get a package for the charter dispute and file it within 2 weeks of my trial?

Nood6201 · 05-18-2010, 07:48 PM

dispute everything

RiceIntegraRS · 05-18-2010, 08:45 PM

I went in for my court date back in July 2009. I disputed the ticket June 2006. Your wait was nothing compared to mine

Five-Oh · 05-18-2010, 09:57 PM

Charter arguments are held in Supreme Court whereas regular traffic violation disputes are held in Provincial Court. You will likely be going up against a Crown Counsel lawyer if you plan to make the time delay your argument.

If you want to be successful you are going to have to be prepared. Know the case laws regarding your dispute and you should know how court works as well as the proper etiquette to be used in court.

ninjatune · 05-19-2010, 09:17 PM

The only reason traffic court is so backed up is because guilty people dispute just to make a lame attempt to get out of paying what they owe.

sebberry · 05-19-2010, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninjatune

The only reason traffic court is so backed up is because guilty people dispute just to make a lame attempt to get out of paying what they owe.

This is what happens when traffic officers enforce minor MVA violations just as heavily as more serious ones.

I would wager a bet that the courts are plugged up with people who were caught speeding at less than 10km/hr over the limit, have aftermarket mufflers that are 1/4" larger than OE and many other minor violations that have not and likely will never be a significant hazard to road safety.

What do you think will happen when the police set up radar drag nets to catch people who have sped up to freeway speed in a merge lane before they hit the 90km/hr sign?

xpl0sive · 05-19-2010, 09:58 PM

exactly why I dispute every ticket... why pay for some stupid fine when I can get out of it... my last ticket was for doing 63 in a 50 on Broadway. Its a 6 lane road with no traffic, yet it's a 50 zone... stupid laws make for stupid excuses

jlenko · 05-20-2010, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninjatune

The only reason traffic court is so backed up is because guilty people dispute just to make a lame attempt to get out of paying what they owe.

Thank you

wing_woo · 05-20-2010, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xpl0sive

exactly why I dispute every ticket... why pay for some stupid fine when I can get out of it... my last ticket was for doing 63 in a 50 on Broadway. Its a 6 lane road with no traffic, yet it's a 50 zone... stupid laws make for stupid excuses

How about not speeding? Then you can save everyone's time. I don't know where on Broadway is a 6 lane road with no traffic though. Broadway seems to always be busy and full of cars.

zulutango · 05-20-2010, 08:44 AM

"I would wager a bet that the courts are plugged up with people who were caught speeding at less than 10km/hr over the limit, have aftermarket mufflers that are 1/4" larger than OE and many other minor violations that have not and likely will never be a significant hazard to road safety."

I'll take your money on that. How much do you want to pay me?

I don't know any Cops who ticket for less than 10k over the limit..there are far too many doing 20 plus plus plus plus out there to risk being laughed out of court for that one. The greatest percentage of tickets written are NOT for those things you specifically mentioned. Percentage quotas are required for dangerous and aggressive driving/riding/seatbelts etc. During the process of investigating the more "serious" offences the things you mentioned may surface and may be ticketed. Keep in mind that there are 2 parties here...the person who breaks the laws and requires a court date that "plugs the system" and the Police who issue the tickets when they find laws being broken. The court system is set up to deal with disputes, it should be capable of doing that. There are ways to speed things up but until there is the political "will" to do it, the system will be what it will be.

xpl0sive · 05-21-2010, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wing_woo

How about not speeding? Then you can save everyone's time. I don't know where on Broadway is a 6 lane road with no traffic though. Broadway seems to always be busy and full of cars.

are you actually going to sit there and tell me that you NEVER EVER break the law? you never speed? you have never rolled through a stop sign, you never accelerated to make a yellow light? come on don't be such a hypocrite.

jlenko · 05-21-2010, 10:23 PM

I don't think the rest of us break the law as often as YOU claim to

I only speed to keep with the flow of traffic.. at least, in my own vehicle. If I'm driving the work truck, then I set the cruise control to the speed limit and stick with it. The truck's got GPS.. and I like my job, so... but at least I stay in the right lane except to pass..

If I'm the lead car... I'm doing the speed limit.

I don't roll through stop signs, simply because two people who DID that ended up hitting me. I sued them both, BTW.. hopefully they learned something.

And I don't speed up to make a yellow light. Talk about a stupid idea.

Maybe you should audition for Canada's Worst Driver... they're always looking for people who think they're invincible. I think I'd enjoy seeing you get tormented on TV...

xpl0sive · 05-22-2010, 07:19 AM

so you don't speed in your truck because you would lose your job. You break the law to keep up with the flow of traffic, and it sounds like you're one of those retards that gets in the left lane on the highway and goes 89.99999km/h... good for you

Vege · 05-22-2010, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xpl0sive

exactly why I dispute every ticket... why pay for some stupid fine when I can get out of it... my last ticket was for doing 63 in a 50 on Broadway. Its a 6 lane road with no traffic, yet it's a 50 zone... stupid laws make for stupid excuses

Some people actually take responsibility for their actions. In this situation you clearly were speeding and got caught for taking that chance. No one forced you to speed it was a decision that you made and you should have known the consequences.

I agree that the speed limits are too slow but you still have to follow them even though you might not agree with them. If you want to go faster than the speed limit, then you should already know what might happen.