Ticketed for filtering, and even the lawyer sees no way out | GTAMotorcycle.com

Ticketed for filtering, and even the lawyer sees no way out

A

autoKsS

Member
Last summer I was ticketed for filtering. I had a phone call with a prosecutor about it who refused to drop the charge, went to court more than a year after the ticket, and have now scheduled a second court date after requesting a continuance (asked for an opportunity to review the ticket issuing officer's notes.)

Here's how I was ticketed:

Heading eastbound on Eglinton, I was approaching a string of stopped cars at a red light just before the DVP. Seeing a clear gap down the middle, I took my bike a few meters down the center between the stopped cars when I noticed an unmarked police car at the front of one of the rows.

I immediately signaled and pulled in front of one of the stopped cars and stopped hoping to not annoy an undercover LEO by rumbling up next to him on a big Harley.

No such luck, he first sticks his elbow out, then his head turned back toward me, points and says "you, pull over."

My ticket is for 'failing to drive in a marked lane.'

After speaking with a traffic lawyer about this, he tells me that he hasn't dealt with a case like this, and based on the officer's notes, there isn't much room to argue otherwise. I pretty much wasn't driving in a marked lane when I filtered, so can't figure out how to fight this.

Wondering if you or anyone you know has successfully fought this kind of ticket.

If there's precedence of a case resembling this being dropped before, then I have an argument for the same. Hopefully so will everyone else in Ontario who gets dinged for lane filtering through stopped traffic. Which for the record, I think should be a legal practice when done safely.


There's also a couple other posts on GTAM discussing filtering in Toronto, see http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showthread.php?170763-Filtering-what-was-your-outcome/page2 and http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforu...FINITIVE-Non-Highway-Traffic-Filtering-Survey
 
Last edited:
if it took over a year for it to come to trial why did you not apply for 11b?
 
nikiter said:
What is 11b again?
Click to expand...

Failure to obtain a trial without unreasonable delay. Any time you asked for isn't eligible (ie. now you have asked for time and they gave it to you, because your actual trial will be 15 months after the infraction, you won't be more likely to be granted 11b then than in your first appearance at 13 months).

I thought Toronto was typically about 14 months for 11b? Maybe I am wrong, has anyone had any recent success with this approach?
 
LoneRonin said:
if it took over a year for it to come to trial why did you not apply for 11b?
Click to expand...

I didn't know that was an option until I spoke to a lawyer after asking for a continuance... lawyer said the same, although at that point it was too late.

Note to anyone who wants to represent themselves in court: know your stuff really well, or hire someone that does!
 
autoKsS said:
Heading eastbound on Eglinton, I was approaching a string of stopped cars at a red light just before the DVP. Seeing a clear gap down the middle, I took my bike a few meters down the center between the stopped cars when I noticed an unmarked police car at the front of one of the rows.

I immediately signaled and pulled in front of one of the parked cars and stopped hoping to not annoy an undercover LEO by rumbling up next to him on a big Harley.
Click to expand...

I'm unsure of what you mean here. It seems like you filtered between your lane and a lane of stopped but running cars. But you mention in your second paragraph that they were parked?

If it was a lane of parked cars and you were in it, you can argue that that is legal. You're allowed to share the lane with parked cars. But if that was a simple written mistake on your part and you meant that you pulled in front of the stopped cars, not parked cars, then there's not much to argue about in court.

I think it's ridiculous that filtering is not legal here and even more ridiculous that you got a ticket for it. Though it's better to get the occasional ticket than get slammed into by a car who didn't brake in time (as would have happened multiple times in my case, though I chose to filter at that time because it was a parked car lane).
 
Good catch, I meant stopped cars, not parked. Both lanes were active traffic, just stopped at a light.

For me it's simply not wanting the ticket because I don't want it affecting my insurance rating. Already have one for speeding (125km/h on the 401) from a couple years ago that the insurer is overlooking, a second ticket will be rated.

It is ridiculous that filtering is ticketed. When done safely, it eases traffic congestion and rewards those of us who choose to use a more economical mode of transport. It also happens to be legal in nearly all of Europe and most of the US.
 
You can still do an 11b. You can write in your application that your original trial date was over a year away then additional time was required to review officers notes.

I just did this successfully 2 weeks ago.
 
autoKsS .... A couple of comments...</SPAN></SPAN>





First, it sounds to me that you did this maneuver safely. You need to establish in court that you were safe. You mentioned that the cars were stopped at a red light, obviously you were not doing 100 kph, didn't cross a solid line, didn't went into the opposite traffic direction, didn't endanger a pedestrian, etc.</SPAN></SPAN>

Then, if you were safe, R. v. Capobianco, 2010 ONCA 589 applies, and you cannot be found guilty.</SPAN></SPAN>


http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2010/2010onca589/2010onca589.html </SPAN></SPAN>


This is a very clear and concise decision, please read it. Let's take two sentences and reword them:</SPAN></SPAN>


On [7], the crown did not present evidence that the respondent’s manoeuvre was not made in safety. This means the same for your case, they have to demonstrate how you were unsafe.</SPAN></SPAN>

On [8], the second condition necessary to find you guilty is "an offence where the driver moves from the lane without first having ascertained that the movement can be made with safety." If you can show you ascertained that the movement you did was safe, then you will be found NOT guilty.</SPAN></SPAN>


Good luck!</SPAN></SPAN>
 
Last edited:
Your lawyer didn't know what 11b is? Is he not a traffic specialist? Every traffic paralegal knows about it and they get paid 1/10 what the lawyer does.
 
bboySushi said:
Your lawyer didn't know what 11b is? Is he not a traffic specialist? Every traffic paralegal knows about it and they get paid 1/10 what the lawyer does.
Click to expand...

He talked to a lawyer AFTER court, where he asked for a continuance.
I am assuming that the OP tried to represent himself initially.
Lawyer told him about 11b, although lawyer thinks it is too late now
 
Re: The 11b, from what I understand, I can't put forward a motion for it after requesting a continuance. I'll talk to the lawyer about it again.

Re: MarcosSantiago: That's exactly the kind of prior case I was looking for! Can't believe one exists and was found. It's definitely a worthy case to make that what I did was done so safely and therefore is not in violation of that subsection. My ticketing officer's notes point out that I was riding on the lines, which is the part that I worry about. That act states that a driver has to be within the lines, so riding on it may be deemed as violation of that particular portion of that law.
 
You can still file the 11b because your original date was over a year from the time. You needed the adjournment to review crown evidence and consult a lawyer. This is allowed and should not affect your 11b.

I had my case adjourned twice for disclosure.
 
autoKsS said:
For me it's simply not wanting the ticket because I don't want it affecting my insurance rating.
Click to expand...

Not a really valid reason....


autoKsS said:
It also happens to be legal in nearly all of Europe and most of the US.
Click to expand...

California is most of the US?

Good luck with fighting this, and let us know what the final result is!
 
autoKsS said:
Re: The 11b, from what I understand, I can't put forward a motion for it after requesting a continuance. I'll talk to the lawyer about it again.

Re: MarcosSantiago: That's exactly the kind of prior case I was looking for! Can't believe one exists and was found. It's definitely a worthy case to make that what I did was done so safely and therefore is not in violation of that subsection. My ticketing officer's notes point out that I was riding on the lines, which is the part that I worry about. That act states that a driver has to be within the lines, so riding on it may be deemed as violation of that particular portion of that law.
Click to expand...

Yes, it looks like you are guilty at a first glance, but let's look at the decision of the court... the prosecution has to prove BOTH conditions... that you left the "single lane" in order to "ride on the lines" AND that doing so was unsafe.

Going back to my post above... related to [7], did the prosecutor present ANY evidence that your manoeuvre was not made in safety? Going to the witness, can the cop provide any evidence to show that you did something unsafe, to you or others?

EDIT: In conclusion, if the cop / prosecutor can only prove one condition (that you were riding on the line, between lanes), then you should be found not guilty.

The problem now is to go back to court and argue R. v. Capobianco in a way the JP or judge can understand.
 
Last edited:
That's fantastic; didn't know there was prior case law for this. Good luck and I hope this sort of thing stops getting ticketed.
 
MarcosSantiago said:
Then, if you were safe, R. v. Capobianco, 2010 ONCA 589 applies, and you cannot be found guilty.


http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2010/2010onca589/2010onca589.html
Click to expand...

Does this case apply to OP's situation, though? It seems the above case referred to a situation where the driver crossed (or drove in/through in some manner) the area where an on-ramp meets the highway (they refer to it as "bull-nose"). Sounds to me like this driver changed lanes "too early" into an on-ramp before the dotted line began.

It's kind of confusing, but seems like the appeal was based on the interpretation of the word "and", and how it's used to describe the law he broke (emphasis mine):

154(1)(a):
a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as may be practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has first ascertained the movement can be made with safety
​

It could very well be that the driver in this case made a lane change through the bull-nose and ended up in the on-ramp lane when there were no other cars in the lane; thus completing the maneuver safely.

I would argue that OP riding between two lanes of active traffic is not the same as changing lanes through solid lines as OP, in terms of what's considered "safe". Though I could see that the end result was that OP did indeed complete this maneuver safely... so I dunno....
 
The ownace is on the crown to prove it was unsafe. I'm curious what explanation there is except: "he was driving between two rows of stopped vehicles."
 
daveyflakes said:
Does this case apply to OP's situation, though? It seems the above case referred to a situation where the driver crossed (or drove in/through in some manner) the area where an on-ramp meets the highway (they refer to it as "bull-nose"). Sounds to me like this driver changed lanes "too early" into an on-ramp before the dotted line began.

It's kind of confusing, but seems like the appeal was based on the interpretation of the word "and", and how it's used to describe the law he broke (emphasis mine):
154(1)(a):
a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as may be practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has first ascertained the movement can be made with safety
​

It could very well be that the driver in this case made a lane change through the bull-nose and ended up in the on-ramp lane when there were no other cars in the lane; thus completing the maneuver safely.

I would argue that OP riding between two lanes of active traffic is not the same as changing lanes through solid lines as OP, in terms of what's considered "safe". Though I could see that the end result was that OP did indeed complete this maneuver safely... so I dunno....
Click to expand...

Good points, very good points, at the end I dunno either, it is for the OP to take it to court and argue it.
But I think it is applies because it is the very same charge.

OP, let us know how it goes....
 
slowbird said:
The ownace is on the crown to prove it was unsafe. I'm curious what explanation there is except: "he was driving between two rows of stopped vehicles."
Click to expand...

From the R v Brunda sticky

What can we conclude from that?

1. if you have to manuveor around mirrors, its going to be illegal
2. Imagine if every car had its doors wide open, if you are in that space, its illegal
3. if the lane/road is less than 12 feet wide / or can not fit 2 cars side by side, its probably illegal - The court made all the necessary findings of fact to draw this conclusion, but it didn't have to because Bunda's behaviour fell within 1 and 2.(note that the 12 feet finding involves travelling safely, this interpretation potentially spills over into HTA 150, because "made safely" is a pre-requisite.) ( I personally think there are huge problems with this particular finding, it has implications for passing pedal bikes as well as a lot of other things. It bascially says that in order for a motorcycle to pass, there has to be enough room for a car, that doesn't make a lot of sense, but the decision opens up a ticket under HTA 150, because of the "made in safety" requirement)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom