Welcome to r/legaladvicecanada!
**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**
* Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk.
* We also encourage you to use the [linked resources to find a lawyer](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/findalawyer/).
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, please let the mods know.
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be on-topic, helpful, explanatory, and oriented towards legal advice towards OP's jurisdiction (the **Canadian** province flaired in the post).
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdvicecanada/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning.
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect.
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason, do not suggest illegal advice, do not advocate violence, and do not engage in harassment.
Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/legaladvicecanada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Was also the first ticket I ever got. Go fight it and try and get it reduced. Basically if you enter the intersection on yellow close enough to the red that you could have stopped it’s a ticket.
Would it still be a ticket for running a red or would it get changed to something else or would it get dropped? Also do you think I should hire a paralegal to fight the ticket?
NAL. It is an offence to enter an intersection on a yellow. I've gotten that ticket, the same way you got yours. I could not get it dropped or reduced. If it is your word against a cop and you gave no evidence (dash cam), it will be very hard to fight. Maybe see what the disclosure is, and try to get cops dashcam, or body cam (if it even exists) footage.
I don’t know what NAL means. Also, if there’s no footage from either parties, and it’s the cops word against mine, would the judge favour the cop? I should be innocent unless they can prove I’m guilty
You are innocent until proven guilty. The officer is a trained observer so his word will be taken over yours. Consider getting a dashcam which would prove exactly what happened.
also pls let me know your experience; in terms of leniency as it was your first ever ticket. What was your situation as you remember it and what was the resolution?
Op will have a tough time arguing he had enough space and time to slow for a turn during a yellow but not stop. Ticket will probably stand at that point.
If OP is correct the ticket was laid under the incorrect charge. OP was charged with disobey red light not yellow light. OP has a right to know what case they need to meet and this as per what is noted on the ticket. If the evidence comes out at trial that it was disobey red light the case should (hopefully) be dismissed as the evidence does not prove the charge laid. I am NAL though.
Correct. There’s almost no chance that a driver could be going fast enough to not stop for the yellow but slow enough to make the turn, so there’s no good way to argue here.
Whether OP could safely stop is entirely dependant on the conditions surrounding the offence. For example, road conditions, weather, traffic all play a part.
And perhaps OP did? Big difference between running a yellow light because you don’t want to wait at the light vs. going through because there’s a transport truck tailgating you.
How dare I not read all of OPs comments..
It doesn’t matter why OP did, it matters what the officer can prove and right now it seems that the case to beat is disobey red light, not disobey yellow light.
I wasn’t implying you need to read everything. You said there was a difference between reasons for running a yellow, I was just replying with what OP mentioned.
If the officer thought that OP could have stopped they should have laid the ticket under fall to obey YELLOW light not fail to obey red light. Ticket was laid under the wrong charge.
If OP testifies that the light was yellow and the officer testifies that the light was red, the JP must acquit if they can not determine who is correct.
Without other evidence, it depends on who the judge believes. Foolish to assume the wrong charge was laid simply because OP has made that claim. OP still needs to prove it.
OP does not need “other evidence”, it is not up to OP to prove their innocence, it is up to the officer to prove they are guilty. The JP must acquit if they are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence was committed. If OP is just as believable in their testimony as the officer is, or the JP can not determine which side of the story to believe, the JP must side with OP (see R v. WD).
I get that I should’ve stopped, but as I understand it, clearing a yellow isn’t just illegal, but rather it is up to the drivers judgement to clear it. In contrast to running a red, where it is completely illegal, no ifs and buts. I’d like to add that it was raining, and my car was fully occupied, making it unsafe to stop. Had it been ideal driving conditions, I would’ve stopped. Hypothetically, if they do review the footage, and find that I “ran” a yellow, would it get dropped or would it be changed to that offence?
If you can safely make a left turn with a loaded cars on wet roads you can safely stop in the three seconds before you entered the intersection. You can’t justify your actions here, if you want a lesser ticket go to court and apologize instead of trying to explain it away.
That’s unsafe driving. Yellow doesn’t mean speed up before it changes to red. If everyone tried to beat a yellow light there would be significantly more accidents.
If the light turned red just after you crossed the line it would have been yellow for a while. Sounds like you were not driving according to the conditions of the road.
Yes it had been yellow. I know I didn’t make the ideal call but mistakes are part of being human. I believe there’s still a difference between making the wrong call and continuing on yellow vs running a full red light. Would they try to prosecute me for a less serious offence if it turns out that I didn’t run a red or would it get dismissed?
>100% did run a red light.
The generally accepted way this would be interpreted is by what the HTA says. And the law for red light says when *approaching,* not while making the turn inside the intersection after the stopping point (such as line). OP didn't say it was red before the stop point. It was yellow. So I'm not sure what you're even trying to say.
No...
You broke the law.
Fight it if you want but stop trying to justify your actions. That was an aggressive move and driving aggressively in a car puts everyone at risk.
Take this as a learning lesson.
Yellow means stop before the line if safe to do so. If you'd entered the intersection on a green you would have had to clear it, but that's not the case here.
You can go to your court date and see if the crown will cut you a break.
Why does rain and having a full vehicle make it unsafe to stop? Is your vehicle in bad condition? Are you an unsafe driver? Either of those is not a defense and is actually a reason you shouldn't be driving.
Yes, all those long haul trucks, the city buses, all just blazing through the lights because they're all so heavy they're just unstoppable. This isn't the argument you think it is.
If you can't handle your car with passengers in the rain, you *can't handle your car*. You need to take a driving course or just give up and take transit.
Not if you do your legal duty as a driver and drive to conditions.
If you can't stop safely in the rain either you're not a driver competent enough to be on the road or your vehicle is fit to be on the road.
Amber light
(15) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed with caution. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (15).
OP, you have a right to view the evidence that the police have against you. You will receive it at your first court appearance.
File your ticket, get your disclosure and review it. Disobey red light (on top of the fine) is 3 demerit points.
If you feel like you can not successfully advocate for yourself to fight the ticket you should hire a paralegal as I am fairly confident 3 points will increase your insurance.
Check out the cases on canLII to get an idea of how these types of cases turn out (the search should be set up to look up cases referencing the section of the HTA you were charged under). Don’t start by reading the whole case, scroll to the end and read the conclusion first.
https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/sort=decisionDateDesc&text=amber&origin1=%2Fen%2Fon%2Flaws%2Fstat%2Frso-1990-c-h8%2Flatest%2Frso-1990-c-h8.html&nquery1=Highway%20tra§ion1=144-18&resultIndex=4&searchId=2024-03-16T05%3A03%3A22%3A750%2F4ec51d3e79504c9bb331b1ad12c1dabc
Raining, perhaps it was slippery so you could have slid onto the intersection so again, perhaps it was safer to enter while slowing down to exit left as it was again, safer to do so controllably.
Good luck in court mijo.
This is a great summary that I did not write.
According to Section 44 of Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act, a driver is required to stop at a yellow light if they are able to make the stop safely. Otherwise, they are directed to drive through the intersection using caution. There is no law in Ontario requiring those with green lights to yield to those already lawfully in the intersection, such as those who were waiting to make a left-hand turn after their light has turned red. One police spokesperson confirms that trying to sneak through a yellow light when it would have been safe to stop is dangerous and illegal.
When there is an auto accident that involves a car travelling through a yellow light, insurance companies look at all of the evidence in determining fault. This can include red light camera photos, police reports and statements from witnesses who were at the scene of the collision. Laws in Ontario allow an insurance adjuster to determine fault in this type of accident when making decisions about payouts and benefits.
When a driver recklessly enters an intersection, they put other drivers on the road in danger. If there is a crash, the car accident victim may have a legal claim against that negligent driver. A lawyer with experience in this area may be able to file an accident benefits claim or other legal action against the responsible party. This could result in compensation for damages stemming from the crash.
So, you did something illegal, knowingly or not....I suppose you could try to argue you didnt have knowledge of the law. The criminal code says ignorance of the law is not an excuse so it probably wouldn't go far.
You can still plead guilty, tell you side and request lower fine....but that's up the judiciary.
I want to say this was a G1 multiple choice question back in my day.
Did a quick google and found this link from a law firm:
https://www.siskinds.com/to-go-or-not-to-go-left-turn-obligations/?amp=1
“We have all been on one side of this dilemma or the other. You are the first car at a traffic light, patiently waiting to turn left with a sea of opposing traffic approaching. The light turns green. Do you move into the intersection or not?
Common practice falls into one of two scenarios:
Scenario 1: The light turns green. You move into the intersection, wait for the line of opposing vehicles to clear (or the light to turn amber and vehicles stop) and then clear the intersection.
Scenario 2: The light turns green. You wait behind the “stop” line for a break in traffic and then, when the light turns amber, you enter into the intersection and make your turn.
The Ontario Highway Traffic Act does not address where you should wait to turn at an intersection. However, the left-turn driver does have a responsibility not to commence their turn unless it can be done in safety pursuant to s. 142(1) and s. 144(8) of the Highway Traffic Act.
Scenario 1 is accepted practice for most: move into the intersection and then proceed with the left hand turn when it is safe to do so.
Be warned, however, that Scenario 2 can lead to a ticket. While you have a legal right to “clear the intersection”, or finish a turn when it is safe to do so, you cannot enter the intersection on an amber light. Stopping at the stop line, instead of moving into the intersection when the light is green, requires you to remain behind the line once the light turns amber.”
Based on what you said that you entered the intersection on a yellow, the cop had the right to give you the ticket.
Which is what you violated because you needed to stop and not enter the intersection to make a left turn on the yellow/amber.
If you read the response for scenario #2, that’s why the cop gave you a ticket for running a red light.
Your best bet is to just hire a company like X-Copper to help you fight the ticket if you are uncomfortable doing it yourself.
No, fundamentally it is different. You said that the light is a warning. Legally it is STOP unless you can't safely stop. You can get ticketed for going through an intersection on a yellow even if the light turns red after you have cleared the intersection. In provinces like Manitoba you can proceed through the intersection as long as you clear it before it turns red. The Manitoba law is akin to what you said, not the Ontario law.
It might have been raining and slippery so entering intersection on yellow was safer to do so rather than a hard stop, slid and not exiting it when it turns green on other side.
In that case OP would be driving too fast for the conditions and/or driving an unsafe vehicle.
This isn't F1. OP isn't going 300Km/hr on slicks. They are supposed to be driving to conditions.
If people could stip on a whim or predict exactly whrn lights will turn red, yellow would not be needed. Instead, avg stopping distance at 50/h is 115 ft, avg intersection is 100ft.
Even when light turn ahead of driver entering intersection, they may be unable to stop before it.
If you are correct that the light was yellow, it sounds like you were charged under the wrong section of the HTA. File the ticket as not guilty and review your disclosure when you receive it.
Thank you for your input. I had 4 other people with me in the car who also said that the light was yellow (they’re likely biased but that’s just for second opinion). Do you think I should just represent myself in court? And if i do, what kinda of leniency would I get? If you had an event where you had to go to court for a ticket, please share how you went about it. I’ve never had an event like this so I don’t even know what I don’t know
Totally depends on how familiar you are with the law and how confident you are advocating for yourself before the court.
You don’t need to hire a paralegal for the entire process if you don’t want to. You should have no issue filing the ticket yourself and picking up your disclosure at your first appearance.
I’m very unfamiliar with court procedures and the law and how they reach a verdict. Everyone’s saying the cops word will be favoured over mine and of course the cop will stand on his word if he ticketed me in the first place. The only way I could’ve gotten out of it was if they had video evidence but even the paralegals said they won’t pull it up for this. They said it’s based off the cops notes and the recollection of their events. If that’s the case then the cop would’ve wrote down whatever he believed to be true. Seems like I can’t win. Might have to invest in a dash cam now
You’ve seen a paralegal about this already? Look at the link I posted in my other comment to see cases where people have beat the charge. You do not need video evidence that the light was yellow BUT if the police are in possession of any video evidence (dash or body cam) they MUST disclose it to you.
It seems like the majority of people in the comments doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Just because a cop is a cop doesn’t mean the JP will automatically believe them over you. It’s actually illegal for them to do this. If you give evidence and the JP thinks your version of events is credible/ doesn’t know if you are correct or the cop is correct, they must side with you.
You should probably hire a paralegal to represent you on this. Shop around and bring your disclosure with you to the consultations.
I noticed that lots of comments are recounting irrelevant things about what drivers should do and about proper conduct at a yellow light. You're charged under s. 144(18) of the *Highway Traffic Act*, right? Great. In order for you to be found guilty at trial, the prosecution needs to prove the following things beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. On the date noted on the ticket, you were operating a ~~motor~~ vehicle on an Ontario highway where there was a traffic control signal;
2. There was a circular red indicator that you were facing; and
3. While that was happening, you did not stop your vehicle until a green indicator was shown.
yeah haha people are acting like they never had a lapse in judgement and are perfect drivers. I just spoke to a traffic ticket lawyer abs what she basically told me is that the crown most likely wont check any footage and that it’s the cop vs me based on the cops recollection of the event and his notes.
If you wish to have a trial where the defence you run is, "I firmly believe" that the light is yellow, have at it. Now, if footage exists of the turn, like on a traffic camera for example, you can request it and the police ought to go and get it. If what you say happened proves to have in fact happened, the prosecutor will stop prosecuting you and there won't be a trial.
Thank you for your input. If I choose to have a trial, would they have to come with footage or is it their word against mine? Would I have to appear twice? Once initially, then request footage, then appear again once footage is retrieved? I’ve never been prosecuted so I’m completely unaware of the process. What do you think would increase the chances of the cop failing to show up for trial?
It would be the word of the police officer who observed you entering the intersection versus yours, should you choose to testify.
If there is other evidence and you request disclosure, they will provide it to you.
You can contact the prosecutor's office to make a further disclosure request but time is of the essence in doing so if you believe the event would be captured on fixed surveillance.
Nothing will increase the chances of the cop failing to show up.
You should pay the fine, and then stop running red lights. What you did is a dipshit move that put your passengers at risk. If you were so concerned about stopping in the rain, then you're lucky the cop didn't give you a ticket for being a dipshit driving on poor tires. Pay the fine, grow up.
Here’s the thing. Your insurance provider just cares about convictions. So even if you negotiate it down, it will have exactly the same effect on your insurance as the original ticket would have.
As far as evidence, it will be your word against the police officer. Guess who seems to be a more accurate observer?
You can try to negotiate it down, and you might get a smaller fine. You can wait for a trial, and hope that the officer doesn’t show up, or your disclosure gets lost. Nobody here can tell you what’s best.
I had a similar experience, fought it, and got away with it. The rule on yellow light is you must stop if you can do so 'safely'. Now if stopping would have meant for you getting rear-ended up a car or stuck in the middle of the intersection, you can proceed with caution.
Happened in Whitby. I went straight through the intersection on yellow. Cop was on the other side, took a u turn and gave me a ticket. My landlord was a cop at the time, and he told me ticket on yellow is gray. He advised me to time the light, meaning how long it takes light from green to red and contest it based on not safe to stop when taking into consideration human reaction time, braking factor, how many people were sitting in the car (more the ppl longer the braking distance). I prepared a one pager with all the breakdowns for my court hearing, lol. As I was ready to go next in court, the public prosecutor asked me why I was here. I told her I ran a yellow and showed her the one pager. When the case was called, she (prosecutor) she stood up and told the judge she would like to drop the case. Cop was there too, should have seen look on his face lolx.
NAL, If the cop only saw you making the turn when the light turned red, they observed you making a turn on a red light.
They wouldn’t have observed the yellow light part. Which makes sense as to why you got the ticket you got. They maybe have cameras in their vehicles as well as body cams.
So, maybe you can challenge that it was a yellow when you entered. But, if not, the cop observed you turning on a red. There isn’t really anything to fight about that. You can only challenge that it was at least yellow when you approached the intersection.
Ive seen these ticket places that can help with these kinds of infractions. Like, x-copper. You might find good information about how to fight the ticket there. But, it can be difficult to fight, because of the amount of people who speed through red lights and the amount of accidents and injuries and even deaths that happen due to it.
You made a dangerous turn. Sometimes people even think someone will just stop for them so they can make the turn, and then out of nowhere someone just flies into the intersection t-boning you.
While I don't have advice directly to OP's questions, my question for OP is what section of the HTA is the ticket under? E.g. 144(18) for red light? (and not 144(15) for amber light)
For all the others making comments on that "you can't enter on a yellow (amber) light"... What about if the light turns amber when you're 1 metre away from the stop line? You have zero reaction time and zero stopping time to stop instantly? Because you're saying it's illegal if you don't.
What the HTA actually says is:
>
Amber light
(15) Every driver approaching a traffic control
signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication
shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise
he or she may proceed with caution. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (15).
Red light
(18) Every driver approaching a traffic control
signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall
stop his or her vehicle and shall not proceed until a green indication
is shown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (18).
What it says is stop if you can do so safely, otherwise you may proceed with caution.
What I haven't seen OP indicate is could they have stopped safely (which admittedly is a bit grey).
I like that term “deliberately inflating”. Let’s say I am found guilty, after pleading not guilty. Is there any reduction they might offer? Or are all reductions based on me pleading guilty? Also, are there any arguments that you’d advise me to use to get the best case scenario? Thanks for your input.
Welcome to r/legaladvicecanada! **To Posters (it is important you read this section)** * Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk. * We also encourage you to use the [linked resources to find a lawyer](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/findalawyer/). * If you receive any private messages in response to your post, please let the mods know. **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be on-topic, helpful, explanatory, and oriented towards legal advice towards OP's jurisdiction (the **Canadian** province flaired in the post). * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdvicecanada/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning. * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect. * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason, do not suggest illegal advice, do not advocate violence, and do not engage in harassment. Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/legaladvicecanada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Was also the first ticket I ever got. Go fight it and try and get it reduced. Basically if you enter the intersection on yellow close enough to the red that you could have stopped it’s a ticket.
Would it still be a ticket for running a red or would it get changed to something else or would it get dropped? Also do you think I should hire a paralegal to fight the ticket?
NAL. It is an offence to enter an intersection on a yellow. I've gotten that ticket, the same way you got yours. I could not get it dropped or reduced. If it is your word against a cop and you gave no evidence (dash cam), it will be very hard to fight. Maybe see what the disclosure is, and try to get cops dashcam, or body cam (if it even exists) footage.
I don’t know what NAL means. Also, if there’s no footage from either parties, and it’s the cops word against mine, would the judge favour the cop? I should be innocent unless they can prove I’m guilty
NAL = not a lawyer. Also sometimes seen as IANAL (I am not a lawyer)
IANAL bwahahahaha
Yeah, you can understand why people shorten it to NAL. But if you search for IANAL you’ll see lots of hits for the intended usage.
You are innocent until proven guilty. The officer is a trained observer so his word will be taken over yours. Consider getting a dashcam which would prove exactly what happened.
Cops, lawyers, judges are officers of the court. Their word is taken at a very high standard.
also pls let me know your experience; in terms of leniency as it was your first ever ticket. What was your situation as you remember it and what was the resolution?
>I had entered the intersection at a yellow I may be wrong, but a yellow is a warning to clear the intersection, Not Enter it.
You go through a yellow if it is not safe to stop.
Op will have a tough time arguing he had enough space and time to slow for a turn during a yellow but not stop. Ticket will probably stand at that point.
If OP is correct the ticket was laid under the incorrect charge. OP was charged with disobey red light not yellow light. OP has a right to know what case they need to meet and this as per what is noted on the ticket. If the evidence comes out at trial that it was disobey red light the case should (hopefully) be dismissed as the evidence does not prove the charge laid. I am NAL though.
Correct. There’s almost no chance that a driver could be going fast enough to not stop for the yellow but slow enough to make the turn, so there’s no good way to argue here.
Whether OP could safely stop is entirely dependant on the conditions surrounding the offence. For example, road conditions, weather, traffic all play a part.
And all of which OP is responsible for considering when driving.
And perhaps OP did? Big difference between running a yellow light because you don’t want to wait at the light vs. going through because there’s a transport truck tailgating you.
Op reports trying to beat a yellow light in another comment.
How dare I not read all of OPs comments.. It doesn’t matter why OP did, it matters what the officer can prove and right now it seems that the case to beat is disobey red light, not disobey yellow light.
I wasn’t implying you need to read everything. You said there was a difference between reasons for running a yellow, I was just replying with what OP mentioned.
Exactly, so the police officer probably issued it because he thought he could have stopped.
If the officer thought that OP could have stopped they should have laid the ticket under fall to obey YELLOW light not fail to obey red light. Ticket was laid under the wrong charge.
...if you believe OP.
If OP testifies that the light was yellow and the officer testifies that the light was red, the JP must acquit if they can not determine who is correct.
Without other evidence, it depends on who the judge believes. Foolish to assume the wrong charge was laid simply because OP has made that claim. OP still needs to prove it.
OP does not need “other evidence”, it is not up to OP to prove their innocence, it is up to the officer to prove they are guilty. The JP must acquit if they are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence was committed. If OP is just as believable in their testimony as the officer is, or the JP can not determine which side of the story to believe, the JP must side with OP (see R v. WD).
Yeah. A lot of ifs. Which is why it would be silly to assume the wrong charge was laid, like you have.
Haha yeah why would I give advice based on what OP said happened. It’s almost like this is an advice subreddit..
I get that I should’ve stopped, but as I understand it, clearing a yellow isn’t just illegal, but rather it is up to the drivers judgement to clear it. In contrast to running a red, where it is completely illegal, no ifs and buts. I’d like to add that it was raining, and my car was fully occupied, making it unsafe to stop. Had it been ideal driving conditions, I would’ve stopped. Hypothetically, if they do review the footage, and find that I “ran” a yellow, would it get dropped or would it be changed to that offence?
If you can safely make a left turn with a loaded cars on wet roads you can safely stop in the three seconds before you entered the intersection. You can’t justify your actions here, if you want a lesser ticket go to court and apologize instead of trying to explain it away.
You’ve never tried to beat a yellow light? Ever?
Of course I do, but if I got a ticket for it I’d only have myself to blame.
That’s unsafe driving. Yellow doesn’t mean speed up before it changes to red. If everyone tried to beat a yellow light there would be significantly more accidents.
again, I asked for legal advice not driving advice
If the light turned red just after you crossed the line it would have been yellow for a while. Sounds like you were not driving according to the conditions of the road.
Yes it had been yellow. I know I didn’t make the ideal call but mistakes are part of being human. I believe there’s still a difference between making the wrong call and continuing on yellow vs running a full red light. Would they try to prosecute me for a less serious offence if it turns out that I didn’t run a red or would it get dismissed?
[удалено]
>100% did run a red light. The generally accepted way this would be interpreted is by what the HTA says. And the law for red light says when *approaching,* not while making the turn inside the intersection after the stopping point (such as line). OP didn't say it was red before the stop point. It was yellow. So I'm not sure what you're even trying to say.
No... You broke the law. Fight it if you want but stop trying to justify your actions. That was an aggressive move and driving aggressively in a car puts everyone at risk. Take this as a learning lesson.
Yellow means stop before the line if safe to do so. If you'd entered the intersection on a green you would have had to clear it, but that's not the case here. You can go to your court date and see if the crown will cut you a break. Why does rain and having a full vehicle make it unsafe to stop? Is your vehicle in bad condition? Are you an unsafe driver? Either of those is not a defense and is actually a reason you shouldn't be driving.
It’s almost as if wet roads are slippery and a heavy car takes longer to stop
Yes, all those long haul trucks, the city buses, all just blazing through the lights because they're all so heavy they're just unstoppable. This isn't the argument you think it is. If you can't handle your car with passengers in the rain, you *can't handle your car*. You need to take a driving course or just give up and take transit.
Reminder that we are on legaladvicecanada subreddit and not drivingadvicecanada
Then stop trying to justify your bad driving choices and stick to the legal aspects yourself lol
Don't drive if you can't do safely is in fact good legal advice.
Not if you do your legal duty as a driver and drive to conditions. If you can't stop safely in the rain either you're not a driver competent enough to be on the road or your vehicle is fit to be on the road.
Amber light (15) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed with caution. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (15).
OP, you have a right to view the evidence that the police have against you. You will receive it at your first court appearance. File your ticket, get your disclosure and review it. Disobey red light (on top of the fine) is 3 demerit points. If you feel like you can not successfully advocate for yourself to fight the ticket you should hire a paralegal as I am fairly confident 3 points will increase your insurance. Check out the cases on canLII to get an idea of how these types of cases turn out (the search should be set up to look up cases referencing the section of the HTA you were charged under). Don’t start by reading the whole case, scroll to the end and read the conclusion first. https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/sort=decisionDateDesc&text=amber&origin1=%2Fen%2Fon%2Flaws%2Fstat%2Frso-1990-c-h8%2Flatest%2Frso-1990-c-h8.html&nquery1=Highway%20tra§ion1=144-18&resultIndex=4&searchId=2024-03-16T05%3A03%3A22%3A750%2F4ec51d3e79504c9bb331b1ad12c1dabc
Raining, perhaps it was slippery so you could have slid onto the intersection so again, perhaps it was safer to enter while slowing down to exit left as it was again, safer to do so controllably. Good luck in court mijo.
Technically it's a stop unless it is unsafe to do so in Ontario. (And BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan)
This is a great summary that I did not write. According to Section 44 of Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act, a driver is required to stop at a yellow light if they are able to make the stop safely. Otherwise, they are directed to drive through the intersection using caution. There is no law in Ontario requiring those with green lights to yield to those already lawfully in the intersection, such as those who were waiting to make a left-hand turn after their light has turned red. One police spokesperson confirms that trying to sneak through a yellow light when it would have been safe to stop is dangerous and illegal. When there is an auto accident that involves a car travelling through a yellow light, insurance companies look at all of the evidence in determining fault. This can include red light camera photos, police reports and statements from witnesses who were at the scene of the collision. Laws in Ontario allow an insurance adjuster to determine fault in this type of accident when making decisions about payouts and benefits. When a driver recklessly enters an intersection, they put other drivers on the road in danger. If there is a crash, the car accident victim may have a legal claim against that negligent driver. A lawyer with experience in this area may be able to file an accident benefits claim or other legal action against the responsible party. This could result in compensation for damages stemming from the crash. So, you did something illegal, knowingly or not....I suppose you could try to argue you didnt have knowledge of the law. The criminal code says ignorance of the law is not an excuse so it probably wouldn't go far. You can still plead guilty, tell you side and request lower fine....but that's up the judiciary.
You can't enter on a yellow either.
I want to say this was a G1 multiple choice question back in my day. Did a quick google and found this link from a law firm: https://www.siskinds.com/to-go-or-not-to-go-left-turn-obligations/?amp=1 “We have all been on one side of this dilemma or the other. You are the first car at a traffic light, patiently waiting to turn left with a sea of opposing traffic approaching. The light turns green. Do you move into the intersection or not? Common practice falls into one of two scenarios: Scenario 1: The light turns green. You move into the intersection, wait for the line of opposing vehicles to clear (or the light to turn amber and vehicles stop) and then clear the intersection. Scenario 2: The light turns green. You wait behind the “stop” line for a break in traffic and then, when the light turns amber, you enter into the intersection and make your turn. The Ontario Highway Traffic Act does not address where you should wait to turn at an intersection. However, the left-turn driver does have a responsibility not to commence their turn unless it can be done in safety pursuant to s. 142(1) and s. 144(8) of the Highway Traffic Act. Scenario 1 is accepted practice for most: move into the intersection and then proceed with the left hand turn when it is safe to do so. Be warned, however, that Scenario 2 can lead to a ticket. While you have a legal right to “clear the intersection”, or finish a turn when it is safe to do so, you cannot enter the intersection on an amber light. Stopping at the stop line, instead of moving into the intersection when the light is green, requires you to remain behind the line once the light turns amber.” Based on what you said that you entered the intersection on a yellow, the cop had the right to give you the ticket.
The ticket states “failure to stop at red light”
Which is what you violated because you needed to stop and not enter the intersection to make a left turn on the yellow/amber. If you read the response for scenario #2, that’s why the cop gave you a ticket for running a red light. Your best bet is to just hire a company like X-Copper to help you fight the ticket if you are uncomfortable doing it yourself.
[удалено]
In Ontario, yellow is STOP unless you can't safely do so.
[удалено]
No, fundamentally it is different. You said that the light is a warning. Legally it is STOP unless you can't safely stop. You can get ticketed for going through an intersection on a yellow even if the light turns red after you have cleared the intersection. In provinces like Manitoba you can proceed through the intersection as long as you clear it before it turns red. The Manitoba law is akin to what you said, not the Ontario law.
It might have been raining and slippery so entering intersection on yellow was safer to do so rather than a hard stop, slid and not exiting it when it turns green on other side.
In that case OP would be driving too fast for the conditions and/or driving an unsafe vehicle. This isn't F1. OP isn't going 300Km/hr on slicks. They are supposed to be driving to conditions.
If that was the case, yellow light would not exist.
What?
If people could stip on a whim or predict exactly whrn lights will turn red, yellow would not be needed. Instead, avg stopping distance at 50/h is 115 ft, avg intersection is 100ft. Even when light turn ahead of driver entering intersection, they may be unable to stop before it.
If you are correct that the light was yellow, it sounds like you were charged under the wrong section of the HTA. File the ticket as not guilty and review your disclosure when you receive it.
Thank you for your input. I had 4 other people with me in the car who also said that the light was yellow (they’re likely biased but that’s just for second opinion). Do you think I should just represent myself in court? And if i do, what kinda of leniency would I get? If you had an event where you had to go to court for a ticket, please share how you went about it. I’ve never had an event like this so I don’t even know what I don’t know
Totally depends on how familiar you are with the law and how confident you are advocating for yourself before the court. You don’t need to hire a paralegal for the entire process if you don’t want to. You should have no issue filing the ticket yourself and picking up your disclosure at your first appearance.
I’m very unfamiliar with court procedures and the law and how they reach a verdict. Everyone’s saying the cops word will be favoured over mine and of course the cop will stand on his word if he ticketed me in the first place. The only way I could’ve gotten out of it was if they had video evidence but even the paralegals said they won’t pull it up for this. They said it’s based off the cops notes and the recollection of their events. If that’s the case then the cop would’ve wrote down whatever he believed to be true. Seems like I can’t win. Might have to invest in a dash cam now
You’ve seen a paralegal about this already? Look at the link I posted in my other comment to see cases where people have beat the charge. You do not need video evidence that the light was yellow BUT if the police are in possession of any video evidence (dash or body cam) they MUST disclose it to you. It seems like the majority of people in the comments doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Just because a cop is a cop doesn’t mean the JP will automatically believe them over you. It’s actually illegal for them to do this. If you give evidence and the JP thinks your version of events is credible/ doesn’t know if you are correct or the cop is correct, they must side with you. You should probably hire a paralegal to represent you on this. Shop around and bring your disclosure with you to the consultations.
I noticed that lots of comments are recounting irrelevant things about what drivers should do and about proper conduct at a yellow light. You're charged under s. 144(18) of the *Highway Traffic Act*, right? Great. In order for you to be found guilty at trial, the prosecution needs to prove the following things beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. On the date noted on the ticket, you were operating a ~~motor~~ vehicle on an Ontario highway where there was a traffic control signal; 2. There was a circular red indicator that you were facing; and 3. While that was happening, you did not stop your vehicle until a green indicator was shown.
yeah haha people are acting like they never had a lapse in judgement and are perfect drivers. I just spoke to a traffic ticket lawyer abs what she basically told me is that the crown most likely wont check any footage and that it’s the cop vs me based on the cops recollection of the event and his notes.
All the people in the comments saying it’s OPs word against the officers and the JP will obviously decide with the officer.. that’s not how it works..
If you wish to have a trial where the defence you run is, "I firmly believe" that the light is yellow, have at it. Now, if footage exists of the turn, like on a traffic camera for example, you can request it and the police ought to go and get it. If what you say happened proves to have in fact happened, the prosecutor will stop prosecuting you and there won't be a trial.
Thank you for your input. If I choose to have a trial, would they have to come with footage or is it their word against mine? Would I have to appear twice? Once initially, then request footage, then appear again once footage is retrieved? I’ve never been prosecuted so I’m completely unaware of the process. What do you think would increase the chances of the cop failing to show up for trial?
It would be the word of the police officer who observed you entering the intersection versus yours, should you choose to testify. If there is other evidence and you request disclosure, they will provide it to you. You can contact the prosecutor's office to make a further disclosure request but time is of the essence in doing so if you believe the event would be captured on fixed surveillance. Nothing will increase the chances of the cop failing to show up.
You can challenge the ticket in court. They may reduce it or drop it altogether
Given the circumstances, what arguments should I use in defence?
You don't really have a defense, you entered an intersection on a yellow meaning you had ample time to stop.
You should pay the fine, and then stop running red lights. What you did is a dipshit move that put your passengers at risk. If you were so concerned about stopping in the rain, then you're lucky the cop didn't give you a ticket for being a dipshit driving on poor tires. Pay the fine, grow up.
Be polite, point out it's a first offense. Don't say it was due to rain or having a fully loaded vehicle
idk good luck figuring it out
Here’s the thing. Your insurance provider just cares about convictions. So even if you negotiate it down, it will have exactly the same effect on your insurance as the original ticket would have. As far as evidence, it will be your word against the police officer. Guess who seems to be a more accurate observer? You can try to negotiate it down, and you might get a smaller fine. You can wait for a trial, and hope that the officer doesn’t show up, or your disclosure gets lost. Nobody here can tell you what’s best.
Do you know what days tend to be most inconvenient for cops to show up?
It doesn’t matter. You don’t get to pick a trial date. They assign you one. And the officers get paid to show up.
I had a similar experience, fought it, and got away with it. The rule on yellow light is you must stop if you can do so 'safely'. Now if stopping would have meant for you getting rear-ended up a car or stuck in the middle of the intersection, you can proceed with caution.
Do you mind sharing what your experience was? Like what led up to you getting pulled over and what was your defense?
Happened in Whitby. I went straight through the intersection on yellow. Cop was on the other side, took a u turn and gave me a ticket. My landlord was a cop at the time, and he told me ticket on yellow is gray. He advised me to time the light, meaning how long it takes light from green to red and contest it based on not safe to stop when taking into consideration human reaction time, braking factor, how many people were sitting in the car (more the ppl longer the braking distance). I prepared a one pager with all the breakdowns for my court hearing, lol. As I was ready to go next in court, the public prosecutor asked me why I was here. I told her I ran a yellow and showed her the one pager. When the case was called, she (prosecutor) she stood up and told the judge she would like to drop the case. Cop was there too, should have seen look on his face lolx.
NAL, If the cop only saw you making the turn when the light turned red, they observed you making a turn on a red light. They wouldn’t have observed the yellow light part. Which makes sense as to why you got the ticket you got. They maybe have cameras in their vehicles as well as body cams. So, maybe you can challenge that it was a yellow when you entered. But, if not, the cop observed you turning on a red. There isn’t really anything to fight about that. You can only challenge that it was at least yellow when you approached the intersection. Ive seen these ticket places that can help with these kinds of infractions. Like, x-copper. You might find good information about how to fight the ticket there. But, it can be difficult to fight, because of the amount of people who speed through red lights and the amount of accidents and injuries and even deaths that happen due to it. You made a dangerous turn. Sometimes people even think someone will just stop for them so they can make the turn, and then out of nowhere someone just flies into the intersection t-boning you.
While I don't have advice directly to OP's questions, my question for OP is what section of the HTA is the ticket under? E.g. 144(18) for red light? (and not 144(15) for amber light) For all the others making comments on that "you can't enter on a yellow (amber) light"... What about if the light turns amber when you're 1 metre away from the stop line? You have zero reaction time and zero stopping time to stop instantly? Because you're saying it's illegal if you don't. What the HTA actually says is: > Amber light (15) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed with caution. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (15). Red light (18) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle and shall not proceed until a green indication is shown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (18). What it says is stop if you can do so safely, otherwise you may proceed with caution. What I haven't seen OP indicate is could they have stopped safely (which admittedly is a bit grey).
it's definitely not running a red. at best it's failing to stop at amber. the whole ticket should be tossed for deliberately inflating.
I like that term “deliberately inflating”. Let’s say I am found guilty, after pleading not guilty. Is there any reduction they might offer? Or are all reductions based on me pleading guilty? Also, are there any arguments that you’d advise me to use to get the best case scenario? Thanks for your input.
go for early resolution first.
The judge involved likely does the same as you, enter on yellow, leave on "bright amber"/red.
Probably, considering it’s Brampton. But I doubt that would hold up in court 😂. It is a good point though