Careless driving...anyone?

[rregtc-etf]

The best advise so far has been given by GEO.  The courts are governed by case law as much as they are by statute law, so previous rulings have to be taken into account by the Justice of the Peace in traffic court.  In certain circumstances the police may just lay a careless driving charge because no other charge can apply  eg. they may not have evidence of follow too closely.  In traffic court you may be approached to plead guilty to a lesser offence but remember that the prosecutor has to prove the charge laid beyond a reasonable doubt.  Slick ice covered roads may provide that doubt.  You are entitled to have the Crown prosecutor's office provide you with full disclosure which would include the police accident report, witness statements, officers notes on observations and measurements taken at the scene of the accident.  Once you plead not guilty, request a copy of the disclosure documents, once you get them have a look at how strong the prosecutors case is.  If you think it's weak, plead not guilty and have a trial on the Careless charge, odds are it will be withdrawn.  Don't fall into the trap of pleading to lesser charge if they can;t prove the original beyond reasonable doubt.
POINTTS or similar can represent you for fee or you can research Case Law on Careless Driving charges and represent yourself.

 

[DBA]

The advice given was to consult your lawyer or a specialty firm for traffic offences followed by discussion and examples of what they can do for you. When apprenhensive about a legal problem hearing that not all is lost and you can get help can be comforting. Myself I took the information of how a defence against CD can be done as informational as to what a law firm might be able to do for you should the situation warrant it. I didn't read it as legal advice of how to conduct your own defence at all.

Your advice on the other hand doesn't seem very good. The "you can not charge a person with an offence if it did not occur" shows a lack of knowledge of the reality of our legal system. It's what LEO tries to adhere to but the fact is charges are laid when an offence didn't occur for various reasons all the time. The statement is certainly not an absolute and it is not a Charter violation to be charged with an offence that didn't occur in most cases.

 

[kincanucks]

Okay, similar question.

2 weeks ago, I was involved in a collision, I was driving a company vehicle, at 4am (security) and a Taxi stopped in the middle of the road to kick out a drunk passenger, I tried to avoid him, and almost succeeded. I was charged with careless, because I hit him. (I am more than reasonably certain that he is at fault, and should have been charged with stopping in a roadway, but taxi drivers get special treatment around here, it seems.) I have just gotten off the phone with the courthouse, and it turns out, I can't even get a first attendance meeting (meeting with the prosecutor to settle out of court if possible) until the second week of January.

Will this completely screw up my application to the CF? (filling out the papers as I type this)
Will I be delayed in getting my application approved until after I get done with the traffic ticket?
and
Will I be barred from enrolling for a set amount of time afterwards? (I asked the Sgt. at the RC about this one, and she said that she didn't know for sure about careless, or other infractions, but speeding is essentially a non issue. But she also said that it may prevent me from applying for 2 years from date of conviction, since it is more than a simple speeding ticket.)

If the second is the only one that is true, I will just plead guilty to the ticket, so I can still enroll, but I would prefer not to, because I feel as though I am not. My car insurance is going to skyrocket though, I'm affraid.

If someone who knows about this stuff, or has applied with a traffic ticket either still in court, or recently on record, please let me know what the score is. I don't want to wait for 2 years to join because of some stupid cabby who couldn't take the pressure of a drunk passenger.

A fine under the Highway Act will not show up on a background check and it won't be a problem unless you don't pay it.

 

[geo]

Pea,

There is the other point that the province (or municipality) might have been negligent.
Shouldn't they have salted the roads?
Shouldn't the police have been out in force - to slow down the vehicles using the public roadways?

There may be plenty of blame to go round - you don't have to carry the can all by yourself.

 

[Scott]

9D and DBA.

Can you two take the pissing contest to PM?

Bottom line for PEA.  There are options.  Talk to your lawyer.

Thank you. Ruffled feathers do not offer any help to Pea. Note the bold, best advice I have seen here yet.

 

[FredDaHead]

All new cars come equipped with ABS.

Actually, no, they don't. For example, the Kia Rio (IIRC) has ABS brakes as an option for the lowest-end model. (As if Kia wasn't low-end enough) I don't know how many other cars come without ABS, but I'm sure the Rio isn't the only one.

 

[rregtc-etf]

Talk to a person that specializes in traffic court cases such as POINTTS or similar companies that will have an ex traffic officer represent you as you agent in court.  This is not a criminal matter and a lawyer may not be the best option.  My previous post was in plain English, so I omitted the Latin legal terms.  I have seen any people successfully represent themselves in traffic court and have seen real lawyers lose in traffic court. :crybaby:

 

[camochick]

Actually, no, they don't. For example, the Kia Rio (IIRC) has ABS brakes as an option for the lowest-end model. (As if Kia wasn't low-end enough) I don't know how many other cars come without ABS, but I'm sure the Rio isn't the only one.

I guess you get what you pay for. I knew KIA's were pieces of junk, but I didn't know that you could choose to make them crappier. I'd go for the ABS, it's saved us this winter (along with the wonderful ESP and 4x4).
Pea, check out all your options, I'm here to help if you need anything.

 

[Cloud Cover]

The "you can not charge a person with an offence if it did not occur" shows a lack of knowledge of the reality of our legal system. It's what LEO tries to adhere to but the fact is charges are laid when an offence didn't occur for various reasons all the time. The statement is certainly not an absolute and it is not a Charter violation to be charged with an offence that didn't occur in most cases.

Have to say you lost me here as well, and I've been called in 2 provinces and 1 state. Then again, I'm a corporate type. Are you suggesting that charges are sometimes laid merely for the purpose of an investigative tool?

 

[Scratch_043]

rregtc-rr:

I went to pointts (I think it was pointts) for a previous ticket, and the 'guarantee' from them, was that if they were unsuccessful, they would refund half my money. The guy who represented me was a former cop alright.... in England.

 

[TCBF]

An offence need not have occurred for charges to be laid.  Only reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has occured.

 

[rregtc-etf]

ToRN - I hope you weren't charged with driving on the wrong side of the road and required a specialist.  I've been told that Canadian courts are based on British system (I have never seen Brit courts except on the tele), so how did the ex-Bobby make out in court ?  Did he address the judge as Ma'Lord ?  I'll bet he was disappointed the judge didn't wear a powdered wig.

 

[Scratch_043]

Well, the only reason I hired him to represent, was because I needed to work, and the days set for court would have killed my hours. I get the distinct impression that all he did, was talk to the crown to get the charge reduced. I could have done that. I thought that their guarantee meant that they would fight and win, or no charge for their services. Turns out, the guarantee is only that they would make 'some sort' of benefit to you. he got the charge reduced by I think 1 point, and no $. waste of a good 200something dollars paying him to go in there.

 

[William Webb Ellis]

Pea,

There is the other point that the province (or municipality) might have been negligent.
Shouldn't they have salted the roads?
Shouldn't the police have been out in force - to slow down the vehicles using the public roadways?

There may be plenty of blame to go round - you don't have to carry the can all by yourself.

The idea sounds good, but in my experience you would need to show gross negligence against the province/municipality.  Most provinces have a municipality act (name may be different) that cover this line of thinking. 

 

[rregtc-etf]

Provincial traffic prosecutors are not lawyers and are hired to prosecute traffic cases.  Because traffic courts are so back logged, they'll usually accept a guilty plea on a lesser included charge, unless it is a very serious case of driving like an idiot or person with a history of driving like an idiot convictions.  Your point about doing it yourself, I totally agree.  

Most people don't get traffic tickets apart from the odd speeding ticket.  And when they do they are more concerned about their car insurance rates rather than the actual fine, people don't have experience going to court and hire others to represent them.

Traffic ticket defence para-legals work in a business out to make money and look for loopholes to fulfill their contract obligations to their customers. If your "agent" can win a trial he will try, if he knows he won't win he will do the next best thing and try to have the charge reduced to minimize demerit points.  He should review evidence against you, consult with you in court and give you your options and possible outcomes.

In most traffic cases the police officer witnesses a driving infraction and can give evidence to register a conviction.  In the case of a motor vehicle accident, the odds are the officer did not see the collision and is basing his decision to lay a charge on his observations at the scene of the accident and statements provided by the drivers or witnesses during his accident investigation. He then lays a charge based on reasonable grounds that a driving offence has been committed  

Careless driving is a catch all offence with a vague definition that can be open to interpretation.  There is a big difference between, "I was stopped for a red light for 3 minutes when the car hit me, I think because he was reading the paper while driving" or "I stopped and the guy hit me right away after his car slid in the snow."   Careless could be laid because it meets the definition, but Follow too closely would be more appropriate in the second scenario.  A trial on the Careless would most likely be tossed.   Some officers will lay the careless and offer a lesser charge in exchange for a guilty plea in court, so he doesn't have to prosecute a case he probably won;t win.  Don't fall for that b.s.  If he didn't take the time to do a proper investigation, I see no problem with making him/her look like a fool in traffic court.  It's the only way some people learn.  Don't think for a minute the JP doesn't know the difference between a diligent and a lazy investigating  officer.

Dollar amount of damage, injury and insurance outcomes do not dictate charges.  The charge must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in the mind of the JP for him to convict.  Convictions in traffic court can be appealed as well.

 

[muffin]

Well, the only reason I hired him to represent, was because I needed to work, and the days set for court would have killed my hours. I get the distinct impression that all he did, was talk to the crown to get the charge reduced. I could have done that. I thought that their guarantee meant that they would fight and win, or no charge for their services. Turns out, the guarantee is only that they would make 'some sort' of benefit to you. he got the charge reduced by I think 1 point, and no $. waste of a good 200something dollars paying him to go in there.

I hired Pointts to represent me when I was charged with Careless driving and it cost me $630 - he explained to me that if I REALLY wanted him to he would fight the charge, but if we lost my insurance agent told me my new rate would START at $4000 a year, and Careless is a criminal charge that would remain on my record for some time... needless to say I opted to have him plead me out to Following too closely. Do I think I could have won? Probably. Was I willing to take that sort of chance - Nope.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

I'd like to caution that advice offered here is not to be construed as legal advice and that anyone acting on any of the advice seen in the thread without independent legal advice does so at their own peril.

Whew! That was my monthly quota of legalese in one sentence. All kidding aside, I think given the variety of advice provided here it would make sense for anyone in this situation to seek actual, live legal advice to be sure their specific situation is handled appropriately.

 

[Pea]

I've definitely sought legal advice from my lawyer. I basically was just looking for some real person experience from anyone who had been in a similar situation, purely out of curiosity. Thanks to all those that contributed. I've got my fingers crossed for the best possible outcome in my case. I probably won't know my fate until early in the new year.

 

[DBA]

Have to say you lost me here as well, and I've been called in 2 provinces and 1 state. Then again, I'm a corporate type. Are you suggesting that charges are sometimes laid merely for the purpose of an investigative tool?

No just that sometimes the requirements for a charge aren't actually met when it's laid or one of the exceptions match. The reasons that happens vary. A lawyer or ex-police officer should know what the standards of proof are for the various requirements and what chance you have going this route. In general the more serious the charge the more specific the requirements and standard of proof.

 

[Lost_Warrior]

All new cars come equipped with ABS.

No, they dont.  My 2006 Mazda3 didn't come with ABS brakes.