Closed Road Traffic Ticket

[simon482]

Depends on the jurisdiction and how busy they are. I got a ticket in Mississauga just before Labour Day last year, my court date was in February.

i was talking to them today and they told me december at the earliest but closer to feb. i guess my wording was off, i just meant next year.

 

[Aardvark154]

You should ask for a court date and fight the ticket. Show that you were acting in good faith and that there was no reasonable way that you could have known the road was closed to traffic.

Agreed, however, although he/she did it is normally a loosing strategy, where I am if the road was not clearly marked as being closed the three other cars could go to reinforcing that. U.C. folks jump in if this would not be true in Ontario traffic court.

 

[james t kirk]

Road closures / diversions in Ontario must be signed as per MTO Book 7.

Knock yourself out (start reading around Page 162)

http://www.otc.org/PDF/OTM_Book_7.pdf

If their traffic control methods are not in agreement with Book 7 - you win. If their traffic control measures were in agreement with Book 7 - you lose.

You could try calling the Contractor who was doing the work (good luck) and request a copy of the approved Traffic Control drawings and then make sure that they are in agreement with Book 7 AND what was actually there.

 

[oldjones]

Having done that, if you can show that the signage in place (your photos) doesn't match up to the required and approved drawings, you could try to contact the Crown's office with your convincing evidence that the road was not properly closed. Don't forget to let them know you'll be asking for the ticket info to get statements from the other three drivers who made the same judgement as you, and you might well make common cause with them. Not that such info will be easily forthcoming, but ultimately it is public. It would also be interesting to hear from the constable in the unmarked just what his/her innocent purpose was in entering the road, and to discover why an officer was actually stationed at, but not preventing cars from entering that closed road. Duty logs and assignment sheets should be on file and could be ordered as evidence, and you could conceivably call to court and ask each officer involved to explain their part in not correcting this danger to safety.

We have been assured that Crowns accord thoughtful attention to such presentations and, as they did with the former Ontario Attorney-General, would consider dropping a case they couldn't make as strongly as the Defence could if it came to Court.

 

[Xieron]

I did drive over today in the middle of the afternoon. Still a huge gap on one side to let cars through. The road itself is not being worked on-new watermains are being put in for a luxury sub-division. The pipes etc. are on the side of road but is anyone actually working on installing them. NO! Not a workman in site. The road is clear and drivable.

 

[oldjones]

Which doesn't mean it is not closed, just that it is driveable, not signed 'closed' and not blocked. Take pix, relate them to the conditions when you got your ticket and consult a professional.

Follow james's advice above and see what signage should be there, proving it wasn't back then will not be a cinch without pix, and it doesn't make the road not closed, just excuses you for not knowing. And maybe gives grounds for collecting the fine from the contractor later. Butsit sounds like this case could be embarrassing for the authorities and the kind of thing a JP would find excusable. Do your research and get that professional advice.

 

[afterhours]

the way you described it the cops were setting people up. unmarked rolls through and regular people follow and they get caught on the other side. the way you described it sounds like entrapment.

It's not entrapment, but it's almost an officially induced error.

The defence of officially induced error was recognized by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Cancoil decision in 1986. In that case, the court explained the defence as follows:

The defence of "officially induced error" is available as a defence to an alleged violation of a regulatory statute where an accused has reasonably relied upon the erroneous legal opinion or advice of an official who is responsible for the administration or enforcement of the particular law. In order for the accused to successfully raise this defence, he must show that he relied on the erroneous legal opinion of the official and that his reliance was reasonable. The reasonableness will depend upon several factors including the efforts he made to ascertain the proper law, the complexity or obscurity of the law, the position of the official who gave the advice, and the clarity, definitiveness and reasonableness of the advice given.

 

[pepsiman]

If they could have a cop up the road giving out tickets ; then they should have had the same cop at the end of the road preventing people from using the road ..
They are doing work on some roads around here too .. But there is signage that says '' Only construction traffic""
It is a nice way for the cop to fill his quota for the day anyway