Traffic Tickets

Question: When I drive into a construction zone I see the sign about double the fine, but have been told that the fine incurred is actually excessive speed if the speed is too high. Is there an actual regulation about double the fine or is this sign just a deterrent?

Question: I filed for disclosure and received a call today from the traffic court registry. They told me that the Crown Counsel is not involved and that only the officer who issued the ticket can provide disclosure. I requested the officers evidence and notes the same day I filed for dispute and never received a response.

I refused to sign the traffic ticket that I got for speeding last week. Does that mean this ticket is invalid and I don't have to pay it? Questions like this one are common from readers who were not happy following their roadside encounter with traffic enforcement. However, a violator's signature is not required to make the ticket valid.

Daniel Prediger was issued a traffic ticket for speeding at Isle Pierre and appeared in traffic court represented by counsel before Judicial Justice Adair to dispute the allegation. The lawyer raised two issues, the officer using a memory aid to assist in testimony and what evidence needs to be led by the Crown before the court can rely on a speed measuring device reading.

This is a case where Timothy Drewcock appealed his conviction for speeding in traffic court. His position is that the JJP should not have admitted police radar evidence because there was no evidence explaining when and how the radar instrument used in the case was tested and what tests were made.

Police often issue a legal document called a notice & order with box #3 checked to deal with minor vehicle defects. It requires that the person responsible make the repair as soon as possible and then report to a specific location within a set number of days to show that the repairs have been made. It sounds simple enough but it is surprising how many misconceptions there are about this.

It's relatively rare to see a traffic court decision appealed by the Crown. In this case, Aria Seraji was charged with excessive speed and disputed the traffic ticket. After his trial the judicial justice found that Mr. Seraji was not driving at excessive speed and convicted him of the lesser included offence of speeding. Crown appealed the decision.

Way back in 2007 the Offence Act was amended by Bill 33, adding section 15(3). This amendment would allow the disputant the same privilege as the prosecutor in conducting a trial by teleconference or telephone. On June 22, 2020 this amendment was finally proclaimed to be in force.

Jagger Ross Schurman was stopped by police in Vancouver for a number of violations while he was driving his mother's car. "He was under the impression that he would be principally fined but that the tickets would not go on his driving record. He also indicated that he was led into an erroneous understanding about the effect of pleading guilty with respect to the accumulation of points against his driver's licence by the attending officer's roadside statements."