Can I Get a Running a Red Light Charge Lowered?

Although There Can Never Be Complete Assurance That a Driving Charge Such As Running a Red Light, Among Many Others Can Be Successfully Fought, There May Be Options Available That Protect Your Driving Record, Reduce the Fine, and Avoid Insurance Rate Hikes, If Any at All.
Similar Questions About Traffic Ticket Cases Include:

  • How Do I Get Out of a Traffic Ticket?
  • How Can I Get a Running a Red Light Ticket Reduced?
  • Can I Plead Guilty to a Lesser Charge?
  • Can I Get a Running a Red Light Charge Lowered?
  • How Do I Get Out of a Traffic Ticket?

A Helpful Guide on How to Determine and Understand How a Traffic Ticket Charge May Be Reduced

Police Officer Issuing Traffic Ticket to Woman In Red Sports Car At the scene of a road stop or accident, the police that attend will often charge a driver with what is the broadest, yet sometimes the charge that is the most serious and presents the harshest penalties such as the fine, demerit points, and affects on insurance rates.  Generally, there are many reasons for the police to do so including, among other things:

  1. To charge the driver with the offence that is easiest for the Prosecutor to prove; and
  2. To provide the Prosecutor with 'room' for negotiation on a plea to a lesser charge.

For example, in a typical and common rear-end accident, the vehicle struck from behind is almost always without fault (generally, unless backing up or purposely slamming the brakes to cause an accident).  In these situations, the driver operating the vehicle that rear-ended the vehicle in front is routinely charged with careless driving contrary to s.130 of the Highway Traffic Act; however, the offence of careless driving is actually a very serious charge, especially for what is often a relatively minor situation such as a slight bump.  Unfortunately, in this situation, and by definition, careless driving is usually the most fitting offence within the Highway Traffic Act that the police officer can charge.  It is necessary to keep in mind that the police officer has a public duty to ensure that the 'at-fault' driver is subsequently proven 'at-fault' if necessary - and not just by the Prosecutor but also in a civil law court if, for possibilities that the police officer is unable to foresee, liability litigation arises in the future.  However, in these situations, the Prosecutor will often 'deal' and allow driver charged with the serious offence of careless driving to plea down to the s.158(1) minor offence of Following to Close.

Some people might ask why the police officer charges the careless driving in the first place rather than placing a charge for Follow to Close in the beginning.  As above, by placing the serious charge at the scene, the Prosecutor is better positioned to obtain a plea to the lesser charge.  Additionally, sometimes the police officer will consider the difference in definition between the two charges and will choose the 'careless' in knowing that careless driving is defined somewhat vaguely, and is therefore sometime easier to prove in court.

However, it is important to keep in mind that accidents can, and do, happen without the legal definition of 'carelessness' being met.  For example, the courts have frequently dealt with the legal question of when does a temporary lack of attention become careless and it is decided that momentary inattention is excusable whereas in R. v. Richards2009 ONCJ 651 it was stated that:

[16] In R. v. Beauchamp (1953), 16 C.R.  270, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated the standard for careless driving is a constantly shifting one which depends on the road, visibility, weather and traffic conditions as well as other conditions which an ordinary driver would take into consideration.

In the matter at bar, clearly the visibility was limited by the fog.  Nonetheless, Officer Nelson acknowledged that his visibility extended to 50 metres which provided a limited range of view for Ms Richards.  While the road was wet from the fog, no evidence suggested Ms Richards could not stop due to road conditions.  No evidence was led there were adverse traffic conditions.  Officer Nelson testified that he was travelling at 60 kph and Ms Richards at approximately 40 kph.  Therefore, Ms Richards’ was driving at a reasonable speed for the conditions of limited visibility and wet roads which existed that night.  In my view, it cannot be said that she was driving “without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway”.

[17] In R. v. Ereddia, [2006] O.J. No. 3421 (OCJ), Justice Fairgrieve also commented on the standards for a conviction of careless driving.  He stated:

(6) The offence of "driving carelessly", created by s. 130 of the Highway Traffic Act, is defined as driving on a highway "without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway".  The law has been clear for decades that in order to make out the offence under s. 130, the driving must be of such a nature that it amounts to a breach of one's duty to the public and is deserving of punishment: see R. v. Beauchamp (1953), 16 C.R. 270 at p. 278 (Ont.  C.A.).  A driver is not held to a standard of perfection, and a mere error of judgment is not necessarily sufficient to establish the offence: see R. v. Wilson (1971), 1 C.C.C. (2d) 466 (Ont.  C.A.).  Careless driving, generally speaking, requires proof of a departure from the standard of care that a reasonably prudent driver would have exercised in the circumstances, and normally involves, I would think, conduct that includes other less serious Highway Traffic Act infractions.

(7) Mr. Klaiman, counsel for the appellant, also referred in his factum to the pertinent judgment of Killeen Co. Ct. J. in R. v. Namink, [1979] O.J. No. 317 (QL), where, at para. 10, the learned County Court judge stated as follows:

It is trite to say that this is a quasi-criminal charge, and that to make out a charge under this section the evidence must bespeak conduct deserving punishment in the way of a conviction under this section of our Highway Traffic Act.  Mere momentary inattention, or a simple kind of error of judgment, does not bespeak the kind of conduct over which the net of this section is cast."

Lesser Offence

As per the above, courts may rule that the prosecution of a serious charge was overkill and inappropriate to the situation.  While the above example uses the serious charge of careless driving as the example, many other examples are also within the Highway Traffic Act whereas a less serious charge applies to a traffic incident situation.  Generally, when convicted of a lesser offence rather than the serious, perhaps overkill for the situation offence as originally charged, the penalties are less harsh.

Summary Comment

When laying a traffic charge, police will often lay the most severe charge applicable to the situation despite other, less serious, charges being available under the Highway Traffic Act.  These less serious charges are konwn as 'lesser offences'.  When charged with a traffic offence, a professional legal representative such as Legal Eagle can review the offence, the evidence documents that the Prosecutor intends to use to prove the case, as well as the circumstances that led to the charge, and help guide you on how best to tackle the case.

Legal Eagle fights Running a Red Light among other traffic ticket charges for clients located in Woodstock, Chatham, St. Thomas, Waterloo, Simcoe, among other places!

Do You Have a Case? Let's Get Started Today

ATTENTION: Do not send any confidential information through this website form.  Use this website form only for making an introduction.

For more information, fill out the form below to send a direct inquiry to Legal Eagle

ATTENTION: Confidential details about your case must not be sent through this website.  Use of this website does not establish a legal-representative/client relationship.  Do not include confidential details about your case by email or phone.  Use this website only for an introduction with a Legal Eagle representative.
Legal Eagle
Paralegal Solutions

476 Peel Street, 3rd Floor
Woodstock, Ontario,
N4S 1K1

P: (519) 276-1140
E: iangwilkinson@legalcentre.ca

Business
Hours:

9:00AM – 5:00PM
9:00AM – 5:00PM
9:00AM – 5:00PM
9:00AM – 5:00PM
9:00AM – 5:00PM
Monday:
Tuesday:
Wednesday:
Thursday:
Friday:

By appointment only.  Please call for details.







LEGALLogo: Legal EagleEAGLE


 PARALEGAL SOLUTIONS

SSL Secured
Trust https://legaleagle.ca


Animated Spinner