Disputed ticket past one year still valid?

[jimkim]

If a court date comes through one year after the offense date, will the constables evidence still hold up in court?

Is there not a statute of limitations?

my offense date: March 27th 2012
Court date June 7th 2013

[AW607]

I think the evidence will still hold up.. now it probably falls on how well the constable remembers things or can recall specific parts, that's where they may have taken notes in case of a dispute.

I remember having a traffic ticket that was issued to me on February 2010, I disputed it and did not appear in court until June 2011. That was 16 months later, but I had all the evidence and supporting documents ready, and I remembered most parts like it was yesterday. I came out better than expected

[Spidey]

if you ever disputed a traffic ticket, your court date will usually be about 12 months later due to all the back log and paper work that is required. The statute of limitations would be in effect if you offended on X date, and were served the ticket way later (I THINK it is past 6 months of the offence date). But since you were served on the date of the offence (I am assuming), it is legit.

[zulutango]

Limitation of action is one year for VTs...in other words, you must be served the VT less than 12 months from the offence date....ie when you did the deed.

[AW607]

Originally Posted by zulutango

Limitation of action is one year for VTs...in other words, you must be served the VT less than 12 months from the offence date....ie when you did the deed.

But the allegation is still considered valid if he shows up to court more than a year later from the offense right? Your post made me a bit more confused

[broken_arrow]

You could advance an argument that you right to a speedy trial was violated (s. 11(b) of the Charter). Although speedy trial is a flexible concept, a lot of case law states that anything over 8 months could be considered a violation of this right... The courts will most likely refer to the statute of limitations for VTs. Keep in mind though that statutes trump common law, so all your efforts might end up being unnecessary. Still worth looking into IMO.

Evidence does not have an expiry date from what I know.

[melloman]

^^ Speedy trial (regarding all the crap that came from Stanley Cup Riot) was 18 months. Anything under was considered "Speedy" yet if over 18 months could be fought that your right was violated.

[broken_arrow]

Originally Posted by melloman

^^ Speedy trial (regarding all the crap that came from Stanley Cup Riot) was 18 months. Anything under was considered "Speedy" yet if over 18 months could be fought that your right was violated.

Did not know that! Cheers!

[Graeme S]

So basically you can go to court up to two and a half years less two days after the offence and still have everything considered valid.


How's that for efficiency!

[sho_bc]

I'm still getting notified for a trial relating to an arrest that happened in January 2009. So long as there are no unnecessary delays, trials can drag on for years without Charter violations.
Posted via RS Mobile

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by AW607

But the allegation is still considered valid if he shows up to court more than a year later from the offense right? Your post made me a bit more confused

Let me try to put in even simpler terms....you speed, the Cops see you do it. They have up to 12 months to serve you the ticket. The ticket is valid if they take less that 365 days to give it to you. You have 30 days to dispute it and then the court system sets a court date. Then the court date is set for trial...that can take many months, depending on the backlog at that particular court. Most tickets are served immediately when you get caught, some can take much longer, depending on what kind of investigation is involved.