Well done! The little guy won for once.

 

Can you give us a brief rundown on what the charge was and how the Charter argument comes into play?

 

Sure - while there's TONS of info online (search charter 11b, or the like) here's the gist...

In Canada - you have a right to a trial in a reasonable amount time after the charge is laid. Can be any charge - this has nothing to do with HTA violations or even Ontario. You are guarenteed this right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So, in a nutshell, if your trial date (through no act or omission of your own) doesn't occur within a reasonable amount of time of the alleged offence - you can make a motion at trial (before you even enter a plea) that you want the charges stayed (withdrawn) because your rights were violated.

Of course the devil is in the procedural details and case law interpretations - but in general - if your trial date is 6,8 or 12+ months after your offence, you might want to consider this approach.

Now, the Charter is not something to be toyed with, and several courts need to know about EVERY challenge to it, lest a bunch of rulings accumulate that undermine it's effectiveness - so you have file notice with several courts well before your trial (the whole reason for me starting this thread) and you have to adhere to a pretty rigid protocol. The Crown tried to use my tight timing to dismiss my motion today, so don't daly.

And, if you go to trial - it seems you need to fully undertand AND explain why and how your rights were violated. It's not some sort of technicality or loophole - you're actually using the Charter to have the charges dropped.

But if this happens to you, clearly you can have charges withdrawn. I did.

Hope that helps someone else someday.

RK

PS. I used a firm called Traffic Ticket Solutions, as per a referral from a fellow Rennlister. Thanks! But all I got them to do was file the paperwork on time - I did all the research, prepped for the case, attended court and was ready for trial. And there was some indication that the JP looked more favourably on my plight because I wasn't a "pro". Kinda makes sense - a pro shoulda known to get the paperwork filed well in advance. I didn't. Til now. ; )

 

Well played - check and mate - that is one in the "w" column for you

 

fyi about a year ago I had a paralegal get me off on thie delay charter ...however the first time we tried, the crown and the judge would not accept it so I asked for adjournment based on that my lawyer could not make it. It was explained to me that some judges will accept the charter and others won't...so it is not as much of a slam dunk as it seems you are promoting it as. Also I don't think the forms need to be submitted in person but most courts will accept a fax.

 

This may very well be correct and I am NOT saying this is easy at all. Not sure how that impression was made. My outcome was quick - but that doesn't mean I didn't do hours of research and prep before hand and was fully prepared to go to trial and appeal if needed.

While some Justices (they are not Judges in Traffic court) might "not accept" these arguements - I'd be keen to hear of such rulings. Both binding and persuasive precendents exist that strongly support the contention that your rights have been violated, even with a delay as short as 6 months - although there's lots of anecdotal evidence suggesting LONGER delays are being accpeted as okay for minor matters. That's distressing if you dig into it - since it's in contravention of precendents set by the Supreme court.

Further - there is case law that suggests minor infractions should reasonably expect a SHORTER time to trial - so the odds SHOULD (if you cite this ruling) be in your favour.

Again - you need to do your research, know your stuff and be brave enough to go for it. As I've always said, "Chance favours the prepared" and that was proved yet again today.

RK