Providing Professional Help to Guide You in Fighting Traffic Ticket Charges
Are you charged with a Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8. offence? If so, take note that resolving traffic ticket issues is often challenging and troublesome. Generally, there are various court documents that require diligent review as well as follow-up issues that deserve professional attention including skilled negotiations with Prosecutors. Silvat Syed Legal Services provides reliable paralegal representation within the Mississauga, Ontario area and is ready to guide and assist you with matters relating to traffic tickets. Silvat Syed Legal Services has the knowledge, experience, and dedication, to provide the help you need, regardless of the complexity of your case. Traffic tickets are a key focus for which experience shows a strong track record in achieving positive results for past clients.
Thoroughly Detailed Professional
When you hire Silvat Syed Legal Services as your traffic ticket paralegal, you receive the help of a hard-working dedicated professional that is focused on the goals of protecting your driving record and minimizing fines, if any. Silvat Syed Legal Services believes in going the extra mile on every case so to exceed client expectations.
Representation for Traffic Tickets Including, among others:
- Careless Driving
- Distracted Driving
- Stunts or Racing (including more than 50 kms. over the limit)
- Driving Under Suspension
- Driving Without License
- among many others
Helping You Reduce the Charges
At the scene of a road stop or accident, the police will often charge a driver with the broadest, yet sometimes most serious, charge possible. Generally, there are many reasons for the police to do so including, among other things:
- To charge the driver with the offence that is easiest for the Prosecutor to prove; and
- To provide the Prosecutor with 'room' for negotiation on a plea to a lesser charge.
For example, in a typical and common rear-end accident, the vehicle struck from behind is almost always without fault (generally, unless backing up or purposely slamming the brakes to cause an accident). In these situations, the driver operating the vehicle that rear-ended the vehicle in front is routinely charged with Careless Driving contrary to s.130 of the Highway Traffic Act; however, the offence of Careless Driving is actually a very serious charge for what is often a relatively minor situation such as a slight bumper bump. Unfortunately, in this situation and by definition, careless driving is usually the most fitting offence within the Highway Traffic Act that the police officer can charge. It is necessary to keep in mind that the police officer has a public duty to ensure that the 'at-fault' driver is subsequently proven 'at-fault' if necessary - and not just by the Crown Prosecutor but also in a civil law court if, for possibilities that the police officer is unable to foresee, liability litigation arises in the future. However, in these situations, the Crown Prosecutor will often 'deal' and allow driver charged with the serious offence of Careless Driving to plea down to the s.158(1) minor offence of Following to Close.
Some people might ask why the police officer charges the Careless Driving in the first place rather than placing a charge for Follow to Close in the beginning. As above, by placing the serious charge at the scene, the Crown Prosecutor is better positioned to obtain a plea to the lesser charge. Additionally, sometimes the police officer will consider the difference in definition between the two charges and will choose the 'careless' in knowing that Careless Driving is defined somewhat vaguely, and is therefore sometime easier to prove in court.
However, it is important to keep in mind that accidents can, and do, happen without the legal definition of 'carelessness' being met. For example, the courts have frequently dealt with the legal question of when does a temporary lack of attention become careless and it is decided that momentary inattention is excusable whereas in R. v. Richards, 2009 ONCJ 651 it was stated that:
 In R. v. Beauchamp (1953), 16 C.R. 270, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated the standard for careless driving is a constantly shifting one which depends on the road, visibility, weather and traffic conditions as well as other conditions which an ordinary driver would take into consideration.
In the matter at bar, clearly the visibility was limited by the fog. Nonetheless, Officer Nelson acknowledged that his visibility extended to 50 metres which provided a limited range of view for Ms Richards. While the road was wet from the fog, no evidence suggested Ms Richards could not stop due to road conditions. No evidence was led there were adverse traffic conditions. Officer Nelson testified that he was travelling at 60 kph and Ms Richards at approximately 40 kph. Therefore, Ms Richards’ was driving at a reasonable speed for the conditions of limited visibility and wet roads which existed that night. In my view, it cannot be said that she was driving “without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway”.
 In R. v. Ereddia,  O.J. No. 3421 (OCJ), Justice Fairgrieve also commented on the standards for a conviction of careless driving. He stated:
(6) The offence of "driving carelessly", created by s. 130 of the Highway Traffic Act, is defined as driving on a highway "without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway". The law has been clear for decades that in order to make out the offence under s. 130, the driving must be of such a nature that it amounts to a breach of one's duty to the public and is deserving of punishment: see R. v. Beauchamp (1953), 16 C.R. 270 at p. 278 (Ont. C.A.). A driver is not held to a standard of perfection, and a mere error of judgment is not necessarily sufficient to establish the offence: see R. v. Wilson (1971), 1 C.C.C. (2d) 466 (Ont. C.A.). Careless driving, generally speaking, requires proof of a departure from the standard of care that a reasonably prudent driver would have exercised in the circumstances, and normally involves, I would think, conduct that includes other less serious Highway Traffic Act infractions.
(7) Mr. Klaiman, counsel for the appellant, also referred in his factum to the pertinent judgment of Killeen Co. Ct. J. in R. v. Namink,  O.J. No. 317 (QL), where, at para. 10, the learned County Court judge stated as follows:
It is trite to say that this is a quasi-criminal charge, and that to make out a charge under this section the evidence must bespeak conduct deserving punishment in the way of a conviction under this section of our Highway Traffic Act. Mere momentary inattention, or a simple kind of error of judgment, does not bespeak the kind of conduct over which the net of this section is cast."
Fight the Fines (statutory minimums)
Many fines for driving violations are legislated as 'statutory minimums' such as, among others:
- The $5,000 fine for causing, permitting, or allowing, an automobile to be driven without proper insurance coverage as per s.2(3) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.25; or
- The $1,000 fine for driving under suspension as per s.53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.
Accordingly, many laypersons (and even 'law'persons) perceive the 'statutory minimum' as absolute; however, despite certain charges appearing as punishable by a mandatory 'statutory minimum' fine, as per s.59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, there does remain some flexibility with ultimate discretion in determining the punishment amount remaining with the Judge or Justice of the Peace.
The apparent inconsistency in the law whereas s.59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act allows for flexibility yet other statutes such as those referenced above state that fines are mandatory minimums was previously challenged on appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal by the Crown in the case of R. v. Ade-Ajayi, 2011 ONCA 192 where it was ruled that the flexibility indeed exists.
The offence of careless driving involves vaguely stated legal elements and is therefore subject to broad interpretation and application to various...Learn More
The offence of stunt driving or racing or engaging in excessive speeds, among other things, may result in significant affects upon the driving record of the...Learn More
Contrary to urban myths, what is meant by distracted driving is the use of a hand-held communication device rather than conduct such as eating, drinking,...Learn More
Similarly to driving at an excessive rate of speed, driving unnecessarily slowly can also be dangerous and unlawful.Learn More
Many roadways now include a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane that provides limited access to vehicles with more than one occupant such as car pools, taxis,...Learn More
In the past a vehicle permit sticker was required upon the vehicle licence plate as well as the vehicle registration card. Today, a sticker is required only...Learn More
In addition to causing significant annoyance, failing to signal poses a danger to others who may be surprised by an unexpected move. Equally annoying may be...Learn More
While the law does allow for a range of fines for many Highway Traffic Act offences, the fines applicable to speeding charges are based on a fixed calculation.Learn More
There is a common urban myth and belief that if a Certificate of Offence, colloquially referred to as a 'traffic ticket', is flawed, meaning imperfectly...Learn More
In December 2018, the Court of Appeal handed down a decision that, essentially, becomes the guideline for review prior to judges using discretion to lower...Learn More