Went to First Attendance - Careless driving

[HBP]

The guy told us we can plea guilty to a lesser charge (from careless driving-->failure to turn left to avoid a collision). This isn't the best option as the conviction is still in place, and I know many careless driving tickets get thrown out since they're hard to prove.

However, say that we do decide to accept the lesser charge, can we go back at any time before the trial? Can we accept it even at the trial?

Also, any advice on fighting the careless driving charge would be appreciated. The officer did not witness the accident, the cars were even moved before he came (blocking traffic flow), and he didn't take any measurements of sorts (I heard any skid marks of tires may/should be recorded).

Thanks.

[pintobean]

Hmmm...can you explain to us exactly what happened?
I will try and see if I can find any cases with similar facts scenarios, to give you an idea of what to expect at trial.

As to the charge itself, I have seen people who were charged with careless even when the cop wasn't there, and they were still convicted at trial based entirely on the evidence of the witnesses.

Finally, you don't have to accept the plea at First Attendance. If you change your mind, you can go to your trial and volunteer to plead guilty to a lesser charge when you check in. The difficulty is that the prosecutor at trial may be different than the prosecutor at FA, which means that you may not get the same offer, or they may not be as lenient. I was once in court, and a guy who had a ticket for running a red-light came in and told the prosecutor he wanted to plead guilty to "fail to obey lane markings". The prosecutor asked him where he came up with that idea, and he said that the other prosecutor had offered it at FA. He asked the guy why he didn't accept it at that time, and the guy just shrugged. The prosecutor said that a shrug wasn't a good enough reason for him, and that he felt that red-light runners needed to be taught a lesson by the courts. As a result, he refused to go with the lane markings charge, and instead offered a more serious plea (something like "fail to obey lane light"). The guy had no choice but to accept, as it was still better than the charge for running a red-light.

[ricenice]

I had the exact same charge and was offered the same. I hit a parked car about 3 mins away from my house. As i was a fairly new driver at the time, 8+ months with a G2 I took the lesser charge. About half an hour after I had agreed, a few other and I had to go in front of a justice of the peace to make a guilty plea and set payment conditions. The judge gave my 1+ years to pay a 90$ ticket lol.

Failure to turn left is 90$ and 3 demerit points I believe.
Careless driving is 2XX+ and 6 points.

This was in mississaga. Good luck.

[HBP]

Thanks, the lesser charge would be 2 demerit points and some $1xx.

The driver also hit a parked car, down the street from his house at around 130am. The car was on the other side of the road. He dozed off at the wheel, this is in the accident report, have not seen the police officers notes (disclosure) yet. It is a 1 lane each way road, without any dividing marks or lane marks (not that it matters... you should not hit cars on the other side).

The police officer said, "careless driving is the blanket charge we give in these cases, you can easily plea to a lower charge. but we have to charge you with something"

I found this case, but I am not sure if it would mean anything:

A "few seconds" of negligent driving

In a recent case, the Supreme Court of Canada restored the acquittal of a B.C. driver whose pick-up truck, for no apparent reason, suddenly crossed the solid centre line into the path of an oncoming vehicle, killing all three occupants.

Witnesses testified the accused’s vehicle was being driven properly before the accident. An expert inspection concluded that the accused’s vehicle had not experienced mechanical failure. Intoxicants were ruled out.

The accused stated that he was not sure how the collision occurred but that he must have lost consciousness or fallen asleep.

The Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge that a few seconds of negligent driving could not, without more, support a finding of a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver. The B.C. Court of Appeal had earlier set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial, finding that the accused’s conduct of crossing the centre line into the path of oncoming traffic could only be viewed as objectively dangerous and a marked departure.

...

More than a momentary lapse

Several principles have emerged over the years from court rulings on careless driving:

* The standard against which the defendant's driving must be measured is not one of perfection. The driving of the defendant must be measured against a reasonable standard or skill, what an ordinary person would do.

* A momentary lapse or a simple error in judgment is insufficient to justify a conviction for careless driving.

* Where an accident has occurred, the fact that serious injury or death has resulted is not, except in unusual cases, relevant to an assessment of whether there has been a departure from the standard of care which would justify a finding of careless driving.

* Mere inadvertent negligence will not necessarily support a conviction for careless driving. More than a bare act of negligence must be proven.


I have also read this:

Unlike speeding charges, for example, the burden of proof for a careless charge is quite high because it is an opinion based charge and quasi-criminal. Courts in the past, have required that the concept of "mens rea" be present. Translated, it means a guilty mind which indicates someone intended to drive carelessly. I have seen case law, from simple rear enders to motorists and pedestrians being killed. Yet the defendants were ultimately acquitted. In my cases, my clients were involved in rear enders, lane changes and in one instance, a pedestrian was struck. The deciding factor in these cases was whether the events fit the legal definition of careless driving.

Many careless charges are laid because officers are not informed on the charge itself. Also, this charge is often laid as a bargaining chip so it can be pleaded down to a lesser charge. Prosecutors can convince an uninformed defendant that they are getting a good deal because of the difficulties in proving a careless charge. This creates the illusion of a win-win scenario for everyone.


These are from ticket-fighters from Toronto, so I'm not sure how much trust should be placed on them. Any advice would be great, could we win the case like this?

Before any flaming occurs about the driver, know that several preventative measures have been taken to ensure this doesn't happen again. Thanks.

[HBP]

Hmmm...can you explain to us exactly what happened?
I will try and see if I can find any cases with similar facts scenarios, to give you an idea of what to expect at trial.

As to the charge itself, I have seen people who were charged with careless even when the cop wasn't there, and they were still convicted at trial based entirely on the evidence of the witnesses.

Finally, you don't have to accept the plea at First Attendance. If you change your mind, you can go to your trial and volunteer to plead guilty to a lesser charge when you check in. The difficulty is that the prosecutor at trial may be different than the prosecutor at FA, which means that you may not get the same offer, or they may not be as lenient. I was once in court, and a guy who had a ticket for running a red-light came in and told the prosecutor he wanted to plead guilty to "fail to obey lane markings". The prosecutor asked him where he came up with that idea, and he said that the other prosecutor had offered it at FA. He asked the guy why he didn't accept it at that time, and the guy just shrugged. The prosecutor said that a shrug wasn't a good enough reason for him, and that he felt that red-light runners needed to be taught a lesson by the courts. As a result, he refused to go with the lane markings charge, and instead offered a more serious plea (something like "fail to obey lane light"). The guy had no choice but to accept, as it was still better than the charge for running a red-light.

Thanks. I don't think any witnesses will be present, there weren't any details of their contact in the accident report, perhaps he will have taken them down in his personal notes. We will have to check after we receive the court date.

[pintobean]

The driver also hit a parked car, down the street from his house at around 130am. The car was on the other side of the road. He dozed off at the wheel, this is in the accident report, have not seen the police officers notes (disclosure) yet. It is a 1 lane each way road, without any dividing marks or lane marks (not that it matters... you should not hit cars on the other side).

The police officer said, "careless driving is the blanket charge we give in these cases, you can easily plea to a lower charge. but we have to charge you with something"
Unfortunately for you, dozing off at the wheel is considered to be careless driving. This has been established by the courts and it is unlikely to be overturned (if you need proof of this, read the case that I've provided below and refer to the cases that are cited by the JP).

If the driver admitted to dozing off, and this was noted in the accident report, then there is very little that you can do now to avoid a finding of guilt at trial. Even without any witness testimony, the accident report would be sufficient to establish that the driver dozed off.

Based upon that fact alone, if you had come on here before the First Attendance meeting, I would have strongly suggested that you accept the offer of a lesser charge. As it stands now, you decided not to accept the plea, and so you have been set down for trial. When the trial date comes up, you should see if the prosecutor is willing to re-offer the lesser charge when you check in (unless, of course, there is something else that comes up that may result in an acquittal - i.e. an 11(b) motion, or cop doesn't show).

Here's a case that is almost 100% on point:
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2004/2004oncj48/2004oncj48.html

Good luck.

[Whitedart]

The guy told us we can plea guilty to a lesser charge (from careless driving-->failure to turn left to avoid a collision). This isn't the best option as the conviction is still in place, and I know many careless driving tickets get thrown out since they're hard to prove.

Take it to trial. Hopefully, he will get convicted with the full fine and 6 demerits.


However, say that we do decide to accept the lesser charge, can we go back at any time before the trial? Can we accept it even at the trial?

That will be up to the prosecutor.



Also, any advice on fighting the careless driving charge would be appreciated. The officer did not witness the accident, the cars were even moved before he came (blocking traffic flow), and he didn't take any measurements of sorts (I heard any skid marks of tires may/should be recorded).

The driver also hit a parked car, down the street from his house at around 130am. The car was on the other side of the road. He dozed off at the wheel, this is in the accident report, have not seen the police officers notes (disclosure) yet. It is a 1 lane each way road, without any dividing marks or lane marks (not that it matters... you should not hit cars on the other side).


If the driver fell asleep at the wheel, there was likely no skid marks.

At least it did not involve any moving vehicle at an intersection or kill someone.

The police officer said, "careless driving is the blanket charge we give in these cases, you can easily plea to a lower charge. but we have to charge you with something"

That correct. It was an at fault collision, and there is no offence for "stupid driving" He should have been charged with impaired driving, if he was so tired his ability to drive was impaired enough that he fell asleep.

[iluvmikeharris]

If the driver admitted to dozing off, and this was noted in the accident report, then there is very little that you can do now to avoid a finding of guilt at trial. Even without any witness testimony, the accident report would be sufficient to establish that the driver dozed off.

File a motion to have the admission thrown out as inadmissible due to the fact that you weren't thinking straight as you had just woken up.

http://www.toonk.nl/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/homer_oh.jpg

[HBP]

Take it to trial. Hopefully, he will get convicted with the full fine and 6 demerits.



That will be up to the prosecutor.




If the driver fell asleep at the wheel, there was likely no skid marks.

At least it did not involve any moving vehicle at an intersection or kill someone.



That correct. It was an at fault collision, and there is no offence for "stupid driving" He should have been charged with impaired driving, if he was so tired his ability to drive was impaired enough that he fell asleep.

Can never keep *******s like yourself out of these threads can you.

Thanks pintobean for the advice, I'll be sure to relay it. I don't think it's a problem, because we did not reject the offer, merely said we would like to discuss it with * and is it possible to come in later, he said sure, try to come in within the next week.

[Whitedart]

Can never keep *******s like yourself out of these threads can you..

Not in this case. I have no sympathy for the driver on this one. As I indcaited in your original thread, there is no excuse for falling asleep at the wheel and hitting a parked car. Then to come on here to have others help get the driver off the traffic charge.

If you can't accept the feedback you might receive, then do you own research, and not air your problems in a public forum.

[HBP]

Not in this case. I have no sympathy for the driver on this one. As I indcaited in your original thread, there is no excuse for falling asleep at the wheel and hitting a parked car. Then to come on here to have others help get the driver off the traffic charge.

If you can't accept the feedback you might receive, then do you own research, and not air your problems in a public forum.

editing it out: not worth it.

[Whitedart]

editing it out: not worth it.

Without being nasty...

You did indicate "several preventative measures have been taken to ensure this doesn't happen again."

Because if involved a preventable collision, the Justice will question the details about the collision, and the amount of damage in either a plea or a trial.
I think the reduced charge from the prosecutor was fair - less financial penalty and less demerit points.

The collision happened, insurance company was probably already involved because of the police report and damage done to the other vehicle.
So it's time for the driver to move on with his life and get this matter settled, not for us to argue the matter in a public forum.

[pintobean]

The collision happened, insurance company was probably already involved because of the police report and damage done to the other vehicle.
So it's time for the driver to move on with his life and get this matter settled, not for us to argue the matter in a public forum.
Whitedart, with all due respect, you are the only one who is doing any arguing. If you don't like the topic or disagree with the OP's position, then follow your own advice and refrain from arguing the matter...simply hit the BACK button.

To HBP, I have looked into this matter for you a little more, and have come up with another possible way out for the driver - you could try to get the statement that was given to the cop excluded. This would only be possible under certain specific scenarios (i.e. if the cop had detained the driver in order to get the statement, and the driver was not read his rights first - the right not to incriminate oneself comes into play). Obviously in order to pursue this avenue, you would need to retain legal help and have them make the appropriate motions.

If you are able to get the statement excluded, then the prosecution will have to prove that the driver had "dozed off" without relying on the driver's admission, and without any witnesses, this would be impossible for them to do.

Good luck.

[HBP]

Whitedart, with all due respect, you are the only one who is doing any arguing. If you don't like the topic or disagree with the OP's position, then follow your own advice and refrain from arguing the matter...simply hit the BACK button.

To HBP, I have looked into this matter for you a little more, and have come up with another possible way out for the driver - you could try to get the statement that was given to the cop excluded. This would only be possible under certain specific scenarios (i.e. if the cop had detained the driver in order to get the statement, and the driver was not read his rights first - the right not to incriminate oneself comes into play). Obviously in order to pursue this avenue, you would need to retain legal help and have them make the appropriate motions.

If you are able to get the statement excluded, then the prosecution will have to prove that the driver had "dozed off" without relying on the driver's admission, and without any witnesses, this would be impossible for them to do.

Good luck.

Thanks for pursuing this case for me, I appreciate it.

I bet this option is possible, since the statement that he "dozed off" was practically baited out of him, after getting him to take the breathalyser (which obviously came out neg). Although, I'm not sure if it's worth it anymore, it seems that they have decided to take the offer and put this whole thing behind them. Insurance is probably already affected since their was an accident claim (could it get much worse? -- especially because the ticket is part of the same situation).

[pintobean]

Thanks for pursuing this case for me, I appreciate it.

I bet this option is possible, since the statement that he "dozed off" was practically baited out of him, after getting him to take the breathalyser (which obviously came out neg). Although, I'm not sure if it's worth it anymore, it seems that they have decided to take the offer and put this whole thing behind them. Insurance is probably already affected since their was an accident claim (could it get much worse? -- especially because the ticket is part of the same situation).
I understand what you're saying about the driver wanting to move on and put this incident behind him. And you're right that the driver's insurance rates are probably already negatively affected since an accident claim was made...

But...there is one big reason why you may still want to consider going to court and trying to get the statement excluded:

A traffic conviction of any kind will add another strike to the driver's insurance profile. He now has one accident on his record. If he decides not to pursue this ticket any farther, then he'll have one accident and one ticket on his record. This is going to cost him a lot more money. If he somehow ends up getting another ticket in the next three years (even for something like an improper turn or minor speeding), then that will be one accident and two tickets on his record, which will result in the driver being forced to go to Facility Insurance. That could end up tripling his current insurance rate.

Anyways, I don't want to push you to do something you're not comfortable with, but I just thought that it would be good for you to know all the possibilities too.

[weedb0y]

The guy told us we can plea guilty to a lesser charge (from careless driving-->failure to turn left to avoid a collision). This isn't the best option as the conviction is still in place, and I know many careless driving tickets get thrown out since they're hard to prove.

However, say that we do decide to accept the lesser charge, can we go back at any time before the trial? Can we accept it even at the trial?

Also, any advice on fighting the careless driving charge would be appreciated. The officer did not witness the accident, the cars were even moved before he came (blocking traffic flow), and he didn't take any measurements of sorts (I heard any skid marks of tires may/should be recorded).

Thanks.

I had my careless charge thrown out due to lack of evidence.

[thelefteyeguy]

I had my careless charge thrown out due to lack of evidence.

that's good cause im pretty sure careless charge is not in the minor offense category for insurance.

I also believe most insurance companies will not accept you if you have a careless charge...and would go straight to facilty (ie. pink application)

[weedb0y]

that's good cause im pretty sure careless charge is not in the minor offense category for insurance.

I also believe most insurance companies will not accept you if you have a careless charge...and would go straight to facilty (ie. pink application)

Thats why I had fought it since it was a minor fender bender and cop showed up after 1.5 hrs!

Most of these cops have no idea what charges they are laying.

[Whitedart]

im pretty sure careless charge is not in the minor offense category for insurance.

I also believe most insurance companies will not accept you if you have a careless charge...and would go straight to facilty (ie. pink application)

Careless driving is 6 demerit points, so likely not considered minor by insurance, and would be equal to 2 other moving violations.

But in the majority of cases, careless can be plead down to a lesser charge.

[ES_Revenge]

The judge gave my 1+ years to pay a 90$ ticket lol.

I'd advise anyone to be careful if this happens to you. The extended time to pay crap is a total scam operation if you ask me. If you don't pay by the date you're supposed to they will suspend your license and then you have to pay big money to reinstate it, plus your fine, plus you then have a suspension on your record :rolleyes:

Now not paying is certainly grounds for license suspension, I'm not saying it isn't. What I'm saying is the way they do it, it's totally underhanded. They don't mail you any letters telling you "you're period to pay is almost over" or even a letter saying "your payment has not been received, please pay now" like pretty much any private company does. But the government? Them be even slightly honest/reasonable? Nope not a chance.

Instead they send you a letter saying "you have not paid, your license is now suspended" and you can't do a damn thing about it after that except pay big time.

They set it up for you to get totally screwed. It's easy to forget that fine you were supposed to pay when they give you a huge amount of time like a year to pay it. Then they don't even send a reminder, just a "hahaha now you're screwed" letter when you do forget :mad:

So definitely pay those fines right away and forget the "year to pay" nonsense they try to push on you.

[pintobean]

...The extended time to pay crap is a total scam operation if you ask me...So definitely pay those fines right away and forget the "year to pay" nonsense they try to push on you.
In all my years of attending traffic court, I have never seen the court push a defendant to accept the "one year to pay scam" (as you call it). Instead, the court always seems to suggest 30 days to pay, and then the defendants are free to ask for more time if they want it.

There have only been two occasions where I've seen the courts offer the defendant more time to pay without them actually asking for it. One was where the defendant said he was a student and asked the JP to waive the fine (the JP said no and gave him 6 months to pay instead); the other was where the defendant mentioned in her testimony that she was a single (widowed) mother of two kids, and so the JP cut her fine in half and gave her 6 months to pay without her even asking for it.

If you've been convicted of an offence and were given a year to pay the fine, then it's on you to remember when it is due. To say that other businesses and establishments will send you warning notices before the due date is not a valid excuse - after all, sending out reminder notices would be considered a courtesy, and the courts are not obligated to be even more courteous after they've already given the defendant the courtesy of extra time to pay.

[ES_Revenge]

If you've been convicted of an offence and were given a year to pay the fine, then it's on you to remember when it is due.
Thanks Captain Obvious. :rolleyes:

To say that other businesses and establishments will send you warning notices before the due date is not a valid excuse
Excuse, excuse for what? Who is talking about excuses? It's a legitimate comparison of businesses to government. If someone says on a thread in shopping discussion that one store/company does things one way where every other one does something another way and therefore that store sucks are you going to say "that's not an excuse"? What does that even mean? :confused:

- after all, sending out reminder notices would be considered a courtesy, and the courts are not obligated to be even more courteous after they've already given the defendant the courtesy of extra time to pay.
Yeah they aren't obligated to, clearly since they don't do it, but that's not the point. The point is it's pretty underhanded, end of story.

[pintobean]

...The point is it's pretty underhanded, end of story.
Underhanded?!
Gimme a break.

If a poor student went to Visa or Mastercard and requested that they stop charging him interest and give him more time to pay his bill, he'd probably be laughed at.

If a single mother went to Bell or Rogers and asked them to voluntarily cut her monthly bill in half, she'd probably be denied instantly.

The courts on the other hand, will freely give poor defendants extra time to pay and will often lower their penalties if requested. The trade-off for receiving these significant courtesies is that the courts won't absorb the added costs of mailing monthly payment reminder notices...

I think that this is far from underhanded.

The other thing you're obviously missing is that businesses will mail their customers reminder notices because they want them to pay up and keep using them (i.e. racking up more bills); the courts on the other hand are not dealing with customers, but defendants who have been penalized for committing illegal acts - any courtesy extended to such people should be seen as a luxury and not a requirement for the courts to be even more gracious.

The bottom line is that if someone is stupid enough to get charged with a major traffic offense and financially irresponsible enough to need a year to pay the associated penalty, then that's their problem - the taxpayers shouldn't have to cover the costs of mailing reminder notices.

Thanks Captain Obvious. :rolleyes:
You're welcome Captain Ridiculous :rolleyes:

[Ebola]

Thanks for pursuing this case for me, I appreciate it.

I bet this option is possible, since the statement that he "dozed off" was practically baited out of him, after getting him to take the breathalyser (which obviously came out neg). Although, I'm not sure if it's worth it anymore, it seems that they have decided to take the offer and put this whole thing behind them. Insurance is probably already affected since their was an accident claim (could it get much worse? -- especially because the ticket is part of the same situation).

How will the driver prove it was "baited out of him"?

Let's be honest, what you are really saying is he said it before he caught himself.

[HBP]

How will the driver prove it was "baited out of him"?

Let's be honest, what you are really saying is he said it before he caught himself.

In all honesty, they asked him 'did you doze off?', and being intimidated + not knowing the language well, he did not want to answer anything until his daughter got there. They took it as a yes.

Remember, you weren't there. I find some RFD'ers are becoming extremely cocky. Regardless, I think hiring a lawyer to fight it off is beyond them at this point, they're pretty dead-set on accepting the plea bargain. Thanks again pintobean for your advice.

[WontonTiger]

I had my careless charge thrown out due to lack of evidence.

Did it even go to trial? Were you acquitted based on reasonable doubt?

I won't air my dirty laundry details online, however I recently beat some charges. The prosecutor could make a deal with you, and before you've signed it change it again. It's entirely up to them to follow through on the talk.

Good luck in court. It's a tough place to be.

[Whitedart]

Did it even go to trial? Were you acquitted based on reasonable doubt?

I won't air my dirty laundry details online, however I recently beat some charges. The prosecutor could make a deal with you, and before you've signed it change it again. It's entirely up to them to follow through on the talk.

Good luck in court. It's a tough place to be.

Yes, sometimes the prosecutor has a weak cae, and that is why you ask for disclosure.

But as you point out, court can be a tough place if you don't know what you are doing. The sitting Justices have usually been a Justice for some time, and they have heard all the excuses before, sitting in court day after day for years.

I have suggested before that people go sit through a day or two in traffic court to see what they are up against, so they don't make a fool of themself when they go to trial, and are in court for the first time.

[nazawale]

I got also careless ticket when we had snow storm late Dec 2007. I hit the guard rail basically my car spinn and hit the railing. So I told her I was driving in 60 km in 90 zone because of snow. The police said you have to drive more slow if it is snowing. Can I say in court that I was just going in 40 office wrote 60.

I need a good lawyer anyone know, let me know

[qwert97]

There is another angle to "sleeping at the wheel".

Get yourself checked for Sleep apnea. In that condition the driver can sleep at the wheel. If the doctor determines that you have that condition the courts may take a lenient view of the collision.

[pintobean]

There is another angle to "sleeping at the wheel".

Get yourself checked for Sleep apnea. In that condition the driver can sleep at the wheel. If the doctor determines that you have that condition the courts may take a lenient view of the collision.
Ridiculous suggestion...you may get the ticket thrown out, but then you'd have to explain why your licence shouldn't be revoked.

[ES_Revenge]

Underhanded?!
Gimme a break.

I think that this is far from underhanded.

Well that's your opinion v. mine. Personally, I don't like being had.

You're welcome Captain Ridiculous :rolleyes:
:D

[ES_Revenge]

How will the driver prove it was "baited out of him"?

Let's be honest, what you are really saying is he said it before he caught himself.
Even if he 'proved' it was "baited out of him", it doesn't matter. Police can do that, no? They can tell lies, do all sorts of stuff to get you to confess and it's all certainly fair game. What they can't do is go beyond "mere coercion" in getting you to confess, or force it out of you either via physical or mental means (like giving you the beating of your life or 8 hours of non-stop questioning).

Ridiculous suggestion...you may get the ticket thrown out, but then you'd have to explain why your licence shouldn't be revoked.
Unfortunately it seems the recent court rulings have said that "momentary lapses" don't always constitute negligence in driving anymore :rolleyes: Sad isn't it? Though I don't think he'd get anywhere with the ol' "I fell asleep at the wheel", it is somewhat ridiculous what you can "get away with" these days.

[pintobean]

How will the driver prove it was "baited out of him"?
If the driver chooses to go to court, his goal won't be trying prove that the statement was baited out of him (the baiting really means nothing), his goal will be to try and get the statement thrown out entirely.

To do this, the defence would have to say that the statement should be ruled inadmissable as the driver was not read his rights first (the right to remain silent, the right not to incriminate oneself). The prosecution would then say that the cop didn't need to read the driver his rights, because he had not been detained or arrested. The defence would then have to prove that the driver did indeed feel like he was detained, and felt that he had no choice but to give the cop a statement. This is a hard thing to prove, but depending on the exact sequence of events, I think that the driver may have a good shot here...

According to the OP, the driver was first given a breathalyzer test as the cop felt that he may have been impaired. The key here is the location that the breathalyzer was administered. Was the driver placed in the back of the police cruiser? If yes, then a valid argument can be made that the driver felt that he had been detained. If the statement "I dozed off" was made at this time, and his rights had not been read first, then in my opinion, there is a good chance that the statement could be thrown out. Obviously a lawyer or paralegal would have a better insight into this, so I'd suggest that the driver find one of these people and get a free consultation before agreeing to a guilty plea.

Even if he 'proved' it was "baited out of him", it doesn't matter. Police can do that, no? They can tell lies, do all sorts of stuff to get you to confess and it's all certainly fair game.
As I've pointed out above, the police can ask you whatever they want and can try all sorts of lies and baiting tricks, as long as you haven't been detained...once you've been detained, they are obligated to read you your rights immediately. If they don't, then anything you say could be excluded from evidence.

The OP hasn't said whether or not the driver was read his rights before he made his statement, but I'm assuming that this wasn't done, in which case an argument can be made to exclude the statement from evidence.

Unfortunately it seems the recent court rulings have said that "momentary lapses" don't always constitute negligence in driving anymore :rolleyes: Sad isn't it? Though I don't think he'd get anywhere with the ol' "I fell asleep at the wheel", it is somewhat ridiculous what you can "get away with" these days.
I have already explained that falling asleep at the wheel is indeed considered to be careless driving by the courts. I even posted a case that was decided on this very basis.

The key is that the prosecution has to somehow be able to prove that the driver dozed off. If the cop wasn't there and there are no witnesses that clearly saw the driver asleep at the wheel, then the only way to prove this is to get the driver to admit to it at the scene and make a statement to that effect. This is what occurred in the OP's situation, so the goal now is to convince the court to exclude the statement.

[Whitedart]

If the driver chooses to go to court, his goal won't be trying prove that the statement was baited out of him (the baiting really means nothing), his goal will be to try and get the statement thrown out entirely.

The driver has a duty to report the collision. In submitting that report, the driver has to make a statement to the officer on what take place prior to and during the collision. Failing to make a proper statement by sitting there saying nothing or not providing a written statement will get the driver charged with an additional offence of Failing to Report.

Sec. 199 of Ontario HTA:
Duty to report accident

199. (1) Every person in charge of a motor vehicle or street car who is directly or indirectly involved in an accident shall, if the accident results in personal injuries or in damage to property apparently exceeding an amount prescribed by regulation, report the accident forthwith to the nearest police officer and furnish him or her with the information concerning the accident as may be required by the officer under subsection (3). R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 199 (1); 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table.



To do this, the defence would have to say that the statement should be ruled inadmissable as the driver was not read his rights first (the right to remain silent, the right not to incriminate oneself). The prosecution would then say that the cop didn't need to read the driver his rights, because he had not been detained or arrested. The defence would then have to prove that the driver did indeed feel like he was detained, and felt that he had no choice but to give the cop a statement. This is a hard thing to prove, but depending on the exact sequence of events, I think that the driver may have a good shot here...


If the driver is being detained to complete an accident report, he will not be read his rights, as he is not being arrested.


According to the OP, the driver was first given a breathalyzer test as the cop felt that he may have been impaired. The key here is the location that the breathalyzer was administered. Was the driver placed in the back of the police cruiser? If yes, then a valid argument can be made that the driver felt that he had been detained. If the statement "I dozed off" was made at this time, and his rights had not been read first, then in my opinion, there is a good chance that the statement could be thrown out. Obviously a lawyer or paralegal would have a better insight into this, so I'd suggest that the driver find one of these people and get a free consultation before agreeing to a guilty plea.

I'm sure you find case law speaking to this.

[pintobean]

The driver has a duty to report the collision. In submitting that report, the driver has to make a statement to the officer on what take place prior to and during the collision. Failing to make a proper statement by sitting there saying nothing or not providing a written statement will get the driver charged with an additional offence of Failing to Report.
I understand that a driver involved in an accident has a duty to report the collision...but that doesn't mean that the driver is forced to incriminate himself and say that he fell asleep, was drunk, was speeding etc...

All the driver had to say in this case was that he was driving along and then all of a sudden he lost control and hit a parked car. Such a statement would have been in full compliance with the reporting law quoted above and would be truthful as well. There was no reason to say anything more.

If the driver is being detained to complete an accident report, he will not be read his rights, as he is not being arrested.
The standard, as I understand it, is not whether or not the driver was detained or arrested...the standard is whether or not the driver felt like he was compelled to make the self-incriminating statement.

If the driver was placed in the back seat of the cruiser, the reasonable assumption would be that he was detained/under arrest as it is unlikely that someone placed in the back of a cruiser would feel like they could simply walk away. In this case then, my opinion is that the driver should have been advised of his rights before he was forced to give the statement.

I will try to find some case law that addresses the subject of self-incriminating statements made while a person was detained but not under arrest.

Anyways, the lesson here is that it is always wise to say as little as possible.

[Whitedart]

I will try to find some case law that addresses the subject of self-incriminating statements made while a person was detained but not under arrest.

The case law will likely address the admissability of a voluntary statement, not a self incriminating one.

[pintobean]

The case law will likely address the admissability of a voluntary statement, not a self incriminating one.
Huh? I'm guessing that the only kind of voluntary statement that a defendant would object to being admitted into evidence is a self-incriminating statement...no? So then the case law will likely address the admissability of a self-incriminating voluntary statement...

[Nikita]

Finally, you don't have to accept the plea at First Attendance. If you change your mind, you can go to your trial and volunteer to plead guilty to a lesser charge when you check in. The difficulty is that the prosecutor at trial may be different than the prosecutor at FA, which means that you may not get the same offer, or they may not be as lenient.

One should always assume that a deal offered by one prosecutor does not bind the trial prosecutor and may NOT be offered again. From what you've said OP, the particular prosecutor you spoke to invited you to think about it and come back. If you decide to accept, you need to make an appointment with that Crown (it sounds like that's what he was advising you to do in any event) prior to the trial date so that a notation is made on your file that the plea agreement was made. Any other crown will respect that deal at trial, so long as it's in writing.

I had the exact same charge and was offered the same. I hit a parked car about 3 mins away from my house. As i was a fairly new driver at the time, 8+ months with a G2 I took the lesser charge. About half an hour after I had agreed, a few other and I had to go in front of a justice of the peace to make a guilty plea and set payment conditions. The judge gave my 1+ years to pay a 90$ ticket lol.

Failure to turn left is 90$ and 3 demerit points I believe.
Careless driving is 2XX+ and 6 points.

This was in mississaga. Good luck.

I'd advise anyone to be careful if this happens to you. The extended time to pay crap is a total scam operation if you ask me. If you don't pay by the date you're supposed to they will suspend your license and then you have to pay big money to reinstate it, plus your fine, plus you then have a suspension on your record :rolleyes:

Now not paying is certainly grounds for license suspension, I'm not saying it isn't. What I'm saying is the way they do it, it's totally underhanded. They don't mail you any letters telling you "you're period to pay is almost over" or even a letter saying "your payment has not been received, please pay now" like pretty much any private company does. But the government? Them be even slightly honest/reasonable? Nope not a chance.

Instead they send you a letter saying "you have not paid, your license is now suspended" and you can't do a damn thing about it after that except pay big time.

They set it up for you to get totally screwed. It's easy to forget that fine you were supposed to pay when they give you a huge amount of time like a year to pay it. Then they don't even send a reminder, just a "hahaha now you're screwed" letter when you do forget :mad:

So definitely pay those fines right away and forget the "year to pay" nonsense they try to push on you.


It's not at all unusual for a JP to give extra time to pay the fine. Sometimes they will ask you how much time you need, sometimes not. If you do need more time and it's not asked of you, be sure to ask. BTW, there's no scam about this, as pintobean mentioned it is a courtesy extended by the court, nobody's forced to take the extra time and it's kinda tinfoilhat stuff to imply that a JP is trying to scam you so that in a year's time the government can collect more money from you.

Thanks. I don't think any witnesses will be present, there weren't any details of their contact in the accident report, perhaps he will have taken them down in his personal notes. We will have to check after we receive the court date.

If there are witnesses, witness statements will form part of the disclosure. If a witness is called and you haven't been notified by the disclosure and/or you don't have a will-say statement, the evidence of that witness may be ruled inadmissible. But ONLY if you object to the witness on those grounds.

Take it to trial. Hopefully, he will get convicted with the full fine and 6 demerits.



That will be up to the prosecutor.




If the driver fell asleep at the wheel, there was likely no skid marks.

At least it did not involve any moving vehicle at an intersection or kill someone.



That correct. It was an at fault collision, and there is no offence for "stupid driving" He should have been charged with impaired driving, if he was so tired his ability to drive was impaired enough that he fell asleep.

Charged with impaired driving? You're joking right?

Without being nasty...

You did indicate "several preventative measures have been taken to ensure this doesn't happen again."

Because if involved a preventable collision, the Justice will question the details about the collision, and the amount of damage in either a plea or a trial.I think the reduced charge from the prosecutor was fair - less financial penalty and less demerit points.

The collision happened, insurance company was probably already involved because of the police report and damage done to the other vehicle.
So it's time for the driver to move on with his life and get this matter settled, not for us to argue the matter in a public forum.

It is rare, if ever, that the JP will question details of the collision or anything else in a plea agreement, at least in my jurisdiction. The Crown will read the facts into the record, the JP will ask the defendant if he agrees with the facts and then a finding of guilt will be made.




Did it even go to trial? Were you acquitted based on reasonable doubt?

I won't air my dirty laundry details online, however I recently beat some charges. The prosecutor could make a deal with you, and before you've signed it change it again. It's entirely up to them to follow through on the talk.
Good luck in court. It's a tough place to be.

Of course the deal should be signed. Once it is (or, what often happens, the Crown makes the deal the morning of trial and doesn't have you sign anything) and you proceed to plead guilty based on that offer, the prosecutor cannot withdraw the offer after you plead. If one tries to do so, you need to advise the JP that you are withdrawing your guilty plea...and explain why. I can assure you the JP will NOT take kindly to any Crown conducting themselves in such an unethical manner.

If the driver chooses to go to court, his goal won't be trying prove that the statement was baited out of him (the baiting really means nothing), his goal will be to try and get the statement thrown out entirely.

To do this, the defence would have to say that the statement should be ruled inadmissable as the driver was not read his rights first (the right to remain silent, the right not to incriminate oneself). The prosecution would then say that the cop didn't need to read the driver his rights, because he had not been detained or arrested. The defence would then have to prove that the driver did indeed feel like he was detained, and felt that he had no choice but to give the cop a statement. This is a hard thing to prove, but depending on the exact sequence of events, I think that the driver may have a good shot here...

According to the OP, the driver was first given a breathalyzer test as the cop felt that he may have been impaired. The key here is the location that the breathalyzer was administered. Was the driver placed in the back of the police cruiser? If yes, then a valid argument can be made that the driver felt that he had been detained. If the statement "I dozed off" was made at this time, and his rights had not been read first, then in my opinion, there is a good chance that the statement could be thrown out. Obviously a lawyer or paralegal would have a better insight into this, so I'd suggest that the driver find one of these people and get a free consultation before agreeing to a guilty plea.


As I've pointed out above, the police can ask you whatever they want and can try all sorts of lies and baiting tricks, as long as you haven't been detained...once you've been detained, they are obligated to read you your rights immediately. If they don't, then anything you say could be excluded from evidence.

The OP hasn't said whether or not the driver was read his rights before he made his statement, but I'm assuming that this wasn't done, in which case an argument can be made to exclude the statement from evidence.


I have already explained that falling asleep at the wheel is indeed considered to be careless driving by the courts. I even posted a case that was decided on this very basis.

The key is that the prosecution has to somehow be able to prove that the driver dozed off. If the cop wasn't there and there are no witnesses that clearly saw the driver asleep at the wheel, then the only way to prove this is to get the driver to admit to it at the scene and make a statement to that effect. This is what occurred in the OP's situation, so the goal now is to convince the court to exclude the statement.

Actually (and unfortunately), the Charter right to be read your rights only applies to criminal charges, not HTA offenses or Provincial offenses.