data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/46cc7/46cc7843dcd58e9bae48cacaee679869d2063cf4" alt="" 鲜花( 0) data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9abd3/9abd3077a7da08d1377ac4cbf7cf07f291cdee3f" alt="" 鸡蛋( 0)
|
本帖最后由 UALaw544 于 2016-11-2 21:09 编辑
2 x& z6 O2 U9 `( |9 N1 g
7 a) C+ M, p* ]# M0 @9 K# D/ C# U& w; k6 a
I think you can try s. 124(3). I have never dealt with traffic ticket, but the narrative is that normally nobody takes this type of strict liability ticket that serious. In terms of the law, you can challenge this ticket and cite the corresponding provision. But the problem is that there are whole bunch of other Acts, Regulations or city Bylaws that I have never heard of in existence, which they can cite to defend or counterclaim. So my point is that you run a risk as they know more law than you. So in the end, you could end up with the same outcome. This is not to discourage you from challenging it, just to get you prepared (think about the time you have to fight the ticket, go to court, off work, whether it worths the effort). For example, one quick argument I can think of is that s. 124(3) does not say that the cop shall cancel the ticket upon you providing proof of insurance. That's why s.124(3) does give some people a leeway, but it does not mandate that ticket be cancelled.
* o. o. V7 S5 l% A$ d- [$ q( k* }+ c/ O) O' r2 F4 I
The court has jurisdiction to reduce fine or change terms of fine repayment, so this has nothing to do with whether they are being arbitrary or being nice to you, this is one of the means to prevent people from all coming to court and clogging the docket. |
|