Media Coverage
Press Releases & Media Coverage
There have been hundreds of newspaper, radio and TV articles about POINTTS. We have included some of these for your information.
Videos
Fight Back
We talk to a traffic ticket pro about what to do if you think your fine is bogus.
Watch our old TV commercials.
News Articles
A list of some of our articles in city newspapers:
 March 14,2006 -- Edmonton Sun
November 29,2004 -- ThunderBay Source
Jun 11.2004 -- The Edmonton Sun
Oct 28, 2003 -- The London Free Press
March 8, 2003 -- The Ottawa Sun
March 7, 2003 -- The Toronto Sun
October 5, 2001 -- The National Post
October 12, 2001 -- The National Post
March 24, 2001 -- The Toronto Star
February 26, 1999 -- The Barrie Advance
September 9, 1999 -- The Sun Media- Calgary Sun
August 21, 1998 -- Sun Media - Financial Post
January 10, 1997 -- The Era Banner
January 10, 1997 -- The Era Banner
HIGH PRICE OF EVIDENCE
Reported on January 10, 1997
The Barrie Advance The Era Banner
By Roy Green
Although the newspapers and the airwaves were full of reports, commentary and opinion on the federal government's settlement of that $50-million lawsuit with Brian Mulroney, there are some questions that didn't get asked.
If the RCMP's case was as bad as we've heard, how come the legal fees are so high? Taxpayers are on the hook for a reported $1 million for Mulroney's lawyers and another million for the government's lawyers. From what I gather, the evidence was so under whelming the case could have been settled in five minutes by the guys at POINTTS.
The RCMP says it's continuing with the investigation. If we're also apologizing to Frank Moores and Karlheinz Schreiber, who is being investigated? And if it's already cost us $2 million to get no evidence on Brian Mulroney, how much will it cost to get evidence - any evidence - against anybody?
Suppose, just suppose, the continuing investigation uncovers evidence that Mulroney did, indeed, take bribes in the Airbus case. Will we get our $1 million back?
Has anyone checked under the shoes in Mila Mulroney's closet for evidence?
I can't remember now, but was it ever determined that any bribes were paid to anyone?
And anyway, given the public perception of Brian Mulroney, wouldn't it have been better to go to court, lose the case and let the judge decide whether Mulroney's reputation was worth $50 million or 50 cents?
August 21, 1998 -- Sun Media - Financial Post
Drivers court trouble: The best traffic offence is a good defense, experts say
Friday, August 21, 1998
The By SHANNON SUTHERLAND
For The Financial Post
 A woman ticketed for hurtling down a highway near London, Ont., at more than 150 kilometers per hour thought she had it all figured out when she went to court to plead guilty with an explanation in hopes of leniency.
She said it was so foggy, she couldn't take her eyes off the road to check her speedometer. She didn't, of course, find a lot of sympathy in court for driving 50 km over the speed limit , heavy fog notwithstanding. However, the woman was exercising her legal rights, and some traffic ticket tales have a happier ending for drivers. Some tickets are quashed due to technical errors on the ticket, and some people are plea bargaining their way out of hefty fines or are getting off by taking the time to come up with a defense strategy. Traffic courts across the country are clogged with motorists challenging their traffic tickets. In Calgary, first appearances in traffic court have doubled to 30,000 a month in the last 10 years. About 100 trials are held every day. In Toronto, between four and 10 traffic courts in six court houses run five sessions every day. In these sessions, up to dozens of traffic court dramas play out daily.
"The days when a traffic ticket was just good after-dinner conversation are gone," says Brian Lawrie, founder and president of POINTTS, a business which provides former police officers for consultations and representation in traffic court. Motorists often don't realize how quickly a few traffic tickets can lead to standing in line for public transit tickets. Many motorists don't understand the law and its courts. Misconceptions about quashing , or legally annulling, a ticket for example, abound.
Calgary lawyer Joan Blumer says mistakes on a ticket such as incorrect dates or unclear charges can invalidate a ticket. But generally, mistakes such as misspelling a person's name or writing down the wrong home address aren't grounds for quashing. What is grounds for quashing is often a matter of discretion and can vary according to circumstances or the particular judge on the day. But it's probably not wise to be ready with an "ah-h-just-hang-on-a-minute" kind of defense resting on the misspelling of the name "Smith" with an "i" instead of a "y." While many people are turning to lawyers or defense services such as POINTTS which charges between $100 and $500 for representation, most people are still defending themselves.
The it-wasn't-me defense is frequently used for speeding. In cases where people are charged with illegal left turns after colliding with vehicles proceeding through the intersection, people often claim the oncoming vehicle was running a red light. And a common defense for failing to obey traffic signs is the sign was obscured. Sometimes these strategies work. But often, even a strong defense isn't enough. Lawrie uses the example of a man who was ticketed for failing to obey a stop sign. The defendant, who was a stranger to the area where the infraction occurred, brought photos to court showing the stop sign was hidden by a tree. However, he wasn't allowed to enter the evidence, because his brother took the photos, and consequently, his brother had to be the one to present them. The man didn't know he could have recalled the officer who ticketed him to ask whether the photos were an accurate representation of the scene. In the end, he was found guilty.
"Often people have a good defense, but they don't know how to present it," says Lawrie.
"They come out of (traffic) court with a bitter taste in their mouth, and for many people, that's going to be their only brush with the justice system."
Lawrie says POINTTS has a success rate of about 82%. However, success often means plea bargaining for lesser charges rather than a not guilty finding. Some people don't want to gamble on a trial. He estimates about one-third of people who are cited for a driving infraction fight the tickets. That equation adds up to some significant numbers, considering about 1.1 million traffic tickets are issued in Ontario annually. In Calgary, almost 300,000 traffic tickets are issued by the city police traffic section each year. Although fines and points differ across the provinces, some traffic infractions carry hefty penalties.
Avoiding fines and demerit points is the motivation to fight tickets in some cases. Careless driving convictions, for example, result in six demerit points in Ontario and Alberta. When a non-probationary driver accumulates 15 points, his or her driver's license is suspended for 30 days.
"It's not usually about points and fines," says Charlie Pester, president of POINTTS Calgary office. "The majority of people have insurance concerns. Insurance hits people faster and harder than demerit points." A careless driving conviction, for example, can increase insurance premiums by between 50% and 300%. Drivers with previously clean records often lose good ratings which reward them with discounts. Inspector Richard Powell of the Calgary Police Service's traffic section says, that if police follow any driver around long enough, the they will likely see some sort of traffic violation. But most people are responsible drivers. And most that do get caught confess and take the ticket in stride, he says. Drivers who aren't as agreeable can always have their day , or their 15 minutes , in court. . "The majority of people have insurance concerns. Insurance hits people faster and harder than demerit points." A careless driving conviction, for example, can increase insurance premiums by between 50% and 300%. Drivers with previously clean records often lose good ratings which reward them with discounts. Inspector Richard Powell of the Calgary Police Service's traffic section says, that if police follow any driver around long enough, the they will likely see some sort of traffic violation. But most people are responsible drivers. And most that do get caught confess and take the ticket in stride, he says. Drivers who aren't as agreeable can always have their day , or their 15 minutes , in court.
September 9, 1999 -- The Sun Media- Calgary Sun
Putting the brakes on photo radar
as Reported in
THE CALGARY SUN
September 9, 1999
 By RICK BELL -- Calgary Sun
Break out the mini violins. It's now official. Big Brother and his radar love is on the skids. And it took Ed Stelmach, this province's road king, a good old common-sense Ukrainian farm boy, to put the brakes on this shameless plundering of the public. Wham! Come April Fool's Day next year, no more photo radar on the Deerfoot. Bam! The same applies to Stoney Trail. Slam! The police will have to post signs anywhere the cameras are clicking. Shazam! Photo radar will only be in spots where speed has caused accidents and in places like school zones and playground zones. No one is shedding a tear over this wrist slap. The cops got exactly what was coming to them.
Let's look at the history.
The province doesn't have photo radar on the highways. Calgary brought it in because the authorities in this town said it would help them cut down on speeding. But give them an inch and they'll take a mile. So it was with photo radar. You see, the bosses of this city were never all that interested in speeding. No, they found the bend in the road, the slope of the hill, the spot where the speed limit changes quickly, the patch of open highway and the bridge to hide behind.
Click! Click! Click! The cameras snapped and the cash registers opened. Not because there was more or less speeding than in all the places around the world without photo radar. But it was a foolproof scam, a minimum of effort, a maximum of profit.
The cops could take pictures. People would get their ticket a few weeks later. They would huff and puff, they would not remember a thing about it, but they would not fight the charge.
Photo radar tickets carry no demerits so they aren't much of a deterrent. You don't get marks against your licence. The cheque would be in the mail and no one's the wiser.
Oh, the badge carriers will bluster and baffle. The cop brass still attempt, without a smirk, to tell us photo radar is only used where it's needed. But nobody believes it.
The peeking Polaroids generate dough. Millions. The cops want the cash, need the cash, they have grown oh-so-very fond of the cash. And the number of tickets goes up.
If photo radar worked, and it was a deterrent, there'd be less and less tickets sent out, wouldn't there?
But there are more. My pal Charlie Pester of Pointts, this city's most famed ticket-fighter and an ex-cop, has fought 10,000 traffic tickets for his clients. "When they brought it in, they did it under the guise that photo radar would do all these great things. "But it didn't decrease speeding. Numbers are actually going up. And what does the camera really do? "If you go over the limit and kill somebody a block down the road after you get your picture taken, photo radar really does squat. "But for money? On the Deerfoot, you can bang off 50, 60, 100 or more tickets in an hour."
Exactly. And so I leave you, with coffee still in the cup and the remarkable rhetorical ruminations on photo radar by my all-time favourite police chief, Christine Silverberg. "One of the things I think we're very good at is shown through the level of analysis of data, the significant data of our impact through a multi-pronged strategy of enforcement, education and engineering."
Huh.
February 26, 1999 -- The Barrie Advance
SPEEDER MISSED APPOINTMENT
Reported on Friday February 26, 1999
The Barrie Advance
It makes one wonder, what was he thinking?
 Barrie OPP detachment traffic unit was notified of a speeding vehicle southbound on Highway 11 this week.
The vehicle was spotted at the 6th Line of Oro-Medonte Township and was clocked on the radar unit at 150 km-h in a 90 km zone.
The officer gave chase and the speeder accelerated to 194 km-h before he was pulled over at the 2nd Line.
When the officer asked the 18-year-old Orillia man why he was in such a hurry, he answered that he was late for a meeting at POINTTS in Barrie. POINTTS is a firm that fights traffic tickets in court and this speeder was consulting them about a previous charge.
The staff at POINTTS, which advertises itself as the traffic ticket specialists, will have their work cut out for them, as the teen is now charged with speeding, having a radar warning device (which apparently didn't work), failing to stop for police, carrying concealed weapons, dangerous driving and breach of probation.
March 24, 2001 -- The Toronto Star
WOMAN AT THE WHEEL
March 24th, 2001
Navigating traffic court can be tricky
Traffic act record could skyrocket your insurance costs
Krystyna Lagowski
Brian Lawrie remembers the day he found his client, a 70-year-old woman, hiding behind the staircase at Old City Hall court.
"She felt like a criminal," he recalls. "A police officer had charged her with careless driving, and someone told her that careless driving carries the potential for six months in jail, which is in the Act, it terrified the life out of her.
Lawrie, the founder and CEO of Provincial Offences Informed Traffic Ticket Services (POINTTS), was able to calm his client. "A few months earlier, she was driving home, looked over at a store window and the traffic in front of her stopped. She collided with another car, but there were no injuries, no major damage. It was just momentary inattention, which doesn't mean careless driving. People who have never been in court before find it intimidating and embarrassing."
As a former police officer, Lawrie has more courtroom stories than you can shake a speeding ticket at. "An individual will walk in and expect that if they say `I didn't do it' or `I didn't mean to do it', that it'll carry the day, and of course, it doesn't."
Robb Knapper, sergeant of corporate communications for Toronto Police Services, agrees. "You can't just call me a liar. There's a burden of proof on you. I'm doing a job. I'm sitting at the foot of the Don Valley Parkway for a purpose , to stop people who are doing 140 kilometers an hour in a 90 kilometer zone."
Presenting a case in front of a justice of the peace, even in traffic court, requires knowing the proper procedures. "When you say that you're not guilty, you are saying to the court that you have the necessary knowledge to defend yourself. And that includes court procedures, rules of evidence, time limitations, all the factors involved in the provincial offenses act ‹ those two words are quite a mouthful," quips Lawrie.
Just because there's a mistake on your ticket doesn't mean you can walk away. "The courts and the legislators realize that the police officer is writing this ticket with the pad on his or her lap, in the dark at 2 a.m. under a dome light. You want a trial on the facts, as opposed to the paperwork."
Lawrie recalls an incident in 1974 when he was still a police officer, where he was at the scene of an accident. "There were two driver's licences in front of me, for the two people involved in the traffic accident. I wrote the other person's name on the ticket, but gave it to the person responsible.
"They came to court, thinking they were going to breeze through because there was somebody else's name on the ticket, but they were convicted."
Michael Turk, lawyer for the Automobile Protection Association, says many individuals will plead guilty just to bring the cost of the ticket down.
"Ninety per cent of the pleas are guilty pleas," he says. "If you have no experience fighting in court, you don't know what to expect in a plea bargain. You don't have a point of reference." Turk says people don't understand the ramifications of pleading guilty."
They are always saying they're worried about points. "I tell them, that's the last thing you should be worried about. You could get a record under the Highway Traffic Act and it could skyrocket your insurance costs."
Lawrie agrees, it's convictions that matter. "Convictions stay around for five years. Your car insurance rate can go up to $5,000. That's tantamount to a driver's licence suspension for a lot of people because they can't afford it."
People who are charged with a Highway Traffic Act offence are guilty, if they are guilty of anything, of a minor regulatory mistake. "We're not dealing with criminals," says Lawrie.
October 12, 2001 -- The National Post
Former officers fight speeding tickets
October 12, 2001
Nate Hendley
National Post
When Brian Lawrie was a police officer, he noticed that few drivers could stand up and defend themselves competently in traffic court. So when he retired, he took on the legal establishment for the right to defend drivers in court. He eventually won a court fight, sparking the birth of a new service, offered by a host of imitators, mostly in Ontario.
 Ten years ago in Waterloo, Ont., I was pulled over by a police officer for ignoring a "no left turn" sign. I tried to explain I had not seen the sign and that traffic routinely turned left at the intersection in question. No dice; I got a ticket and a warning about sloppy driving habits.
While I suffered nothing more than embarrassment and a small fine, the consequences could have been much worse. Even small-time infractions can result in huge insurance costs, warns Brian Lawrie, founder of Pointts, a Toronto-based company devoted to fighting traffic tickets.
Pointts stands for Provincial Offences Informed Traffic Ticket Services. The company has been in business since 1984, and was the first firm of its kind. Mr. Lawrie initially had to wage a judicial battle for the right to defend minor traffic offenders. His subsequent court victory paved the way for a series of imitators to set up shop.
Today, there are roughly two dozen firms in the Toronto area alone that battle on the behalf of roadway miscreants. Many of the employees at these companies are former police officers.
Mr. Lawrie served 10 years on the Toronto police force and five years with the Essex Constabulary in Britain.
"When I was a uniformed officer in Toronto, I saw my fair share of the inside of traffic court," he says.
Mr. Lawrie noticed that few drivers were any good at defending themselves.
Anxiety over public speaking and being on trial, combined with ignorance of courtroom procedures, often doomed people who otherwise had strong defences, he says.
As a result, many of them got saddled with fines, demerits and steep insurance costs.
After retiring from the Toronto police in the early 1980s, Mr. Lawrie decided to start a business that would provide a professional defence for traffic offenders. He lacked a law degree but figured his practical experience made up for any educational deficiencies.
Unfortunately, the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) -- an association that regulates Ontario lawyers -- thought otherwise. The LSUC was angry that a paralegal (a non-lawyer who offers legal services) such as Mr. Lawrie was getting paid to appear in court.
The Law Society's outrage was somewhat confusing, considering it is rare for anyone to hire a lawyer to defend him on a traffic charge.
Not only are lawyers expensive, most of them have limited experience dealing with minor traffic violations, says Mr. Lawrie. Lawyers who are experts at criminal and civil law often find themselves out of their depth in traffic court.
Nonetheless, in 1985, the LSUC charged Mr. Lawrie with unlawfully acting as a barrister and a solicitor. Two years later, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled it was OK for paralegals to charge fees for appearing in court. The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the case, which means the ruling still stands.
As a result of the Appeal Court's decision, Ontario has become the traffic ticket defence capital of Canada. Thirty-one of Pointts' 34 offices are located in this province. The others are in Manitoba and Alberta. None are found in Quebec, the one province where companies such as Pointts are still prohibited from operating.
Mr. Lawrie employs 47 field agents, most them former police officers. In an average year, his company helps 50,000 to 65,000 clients fight provincial traffic charges.
David Matheson, founder of X-Copper, cannot claim to match such impressive figures, although his firm does enjoy high visibility. X-Copper has six offices and a fleet of two dozen white cars, some of them former police cruisers, which bear the company's logo.
Mr. Matheson founded X- Copper after retiring from the York Region police force in 1988. His firm also defends clients on traffic violations. Like Pointts, X-Copper offers free consultations.
Neither man feels guilt for defending the same kind of people they once busted as policemen.
In fact, Mr. Lawrie claims that Pointts has been a boon to the legal system.
"We speed things up. The justice of the peace and the prosecutor no longer have to give each defendant 'Traffic Court 101,' which used to be the case," he says. Mr. Matheson says much the same.
"We want to make sure the system is kept on its toes," he says. "We also want to make sure that people get a fair voice, something which just wasn't happening before."
October 5, 2001 -- The National Post
TRAFFIC LAW 101
October 5, 2001
Krystyna Lagowski
National Post
What is it about a flashing red light in the rear-view mirror that can strike fear into the heart of the most law-abiding driver? Do not assume guilt-above all, stay in your car and wait for the police officer to approach. "Make sure that, upon request, you are ready to surrender your driver's licence, ownership and insurance," says Darrin Little, a Toronto police constable with the traffic services department. "And if you don't have them, be prepared to explain why." Do not start digging around for them before you're asked, advises Brian J. Lawrie, chief executive of Pointts Advisory Ltd. "Don't volunteer any information when the officer asks if you know why you were stopped," he says. "A simple 'no' is good enough. If you have a reasonable explanation, now is the time to offer it. But, remember, the officer has heard it all; the least said the better." Const. Little says it is wise to be co-operative to expedite the interview. "We advise not to get into a confrontation on the side of the road - that's why we have a judicial system. The officer will explain your options when issuing the offence." If you receive a ticket and are asked to sign the officer's book, just sign it, advises Mr. Lawrie. Your signature is merely an acknowledgement of the receipt of your copy, not an acknowledgement of guilt. "The officer is what's termed an 'independent agent of the Crown,'" Mr. Lawrie says. "That means he has the discretion to either lay a formal charge by issuing a ticket, or just give a warning." Const. Little adds: "Make sure the person who has pulled you over is actually a police officer. There are numerous security [officers] who sometimes look like police officers in their cars. Don't hesitate to ask for identification, especially if it's a plainclothes officer." Finally, when the officer leaves, write notes of what just transpired. "Write down things like location, weather conditions, traffic volume, any obstructions to your view or the officer's view and details of your conversation with the officer," says Mr. Lawrie. If you decide to fight the offence, these can be valuable in court.
March 7, 2003 -- The Toronto Sun
Lights, camera but no more action
City's red-light cases on hold until appeal
Friday, March 7, 2003
IAN MCDOUGALL
TORONTO SUN
The city will put the brakes on red-light camera court hearings until it can appeal a ruling by a justice of the peace that the photos are inadmissible in court.
The head of the works committee, Councillor Brad Duguid, said yesterday that city prosecutors will adjourn hearings on the tickets pending an appeal.
"We're getting legal advice," Duguid said. "We'll also ask that the charges not be thrown out but delayed."
A ticket was thrown out Tuesday at the Sheppard Ave. court when a justice of the peace ruled that the photos are not admissible because they do not clearly show the location where they were taken.
Several other tickets were dismissed immediately after, and Duguid said yesterday the city was anticipating another 30 to 40 of the $190 tickets getting tossed out.
"In my layman's opinion it looks like a wacky decision," said Duguid who's a strong supporter of the cameras.
Adjournments could affect about 800 outstanding tickets that might go to trial between now and May, said Mike Brady, who runs the city's red-light project.
Brady said the city estimates only about 400 will actually go further than the disclosure stage.
The city will also talk to the attorney general and ministry of transportation about getting the regulations governing red-light cameras changed, Duguid said.
In the meantime, the cameras will continue to operate, he said.
Meanwhile, phones at the offices of Pointts, a paralegal agency that fights traffic tickets, were buzzing with calls about the red-light tickets after Tuesday's decision, said company founder Brian Lawrie.
"They've received a number of inquiries from people who have already paid the tickets," Lawrie said. "(But) once you've paid, that's it."
Lawrie, a former Toronto cop, said the red-light cameras haven't been the cure for traffic safety that some might think.
"We've had problems with red-light cameras ever since they were introduced," he said. "This is a politician's solution to a policeman's problem."
The devices were first introduced in San Diego about 15 years ago and led to a new traffic problem as people started slamming on their brakes to avoid getting snapped, he said.
"It vastly increased the accidents on the approach to the intersection," he said. "An automated device sitting at an intersection is not the way to do it."
Since the program started in November 2000 as a two-year pilot project, the cameras have issued about 22,000 tickets.
Duguid said his works committee will get a report on adding photo radar to the electronic arsenal in April.
March 8, 2003 -- The Ottawa Sun
CAMERAS HIT ROADBLOCK
March 8, 2003
Lisa Lisle
Ottawa SUN
A recent court ruling in Toronto could give local red-light runners the green light to fight charges resulting from photographs taken by so-called red-light cameras. Randy Smale of the local POINTTS office said he doesn’t normally get a lot of calls from clients concerned about red-light tickets. But if the number of calls going into the Toronto office is any indication of what’s to come, he can expect his phone to be ringing off the hook. “They’ve received a number of inquiries from people who have already paid the tickets,” said Brian Lawrie, founder of the paralegal agency that fights traffic tickets. In light of the ruling, Lawrie is encouraging people in other jurisdictions to fight the tickets.
Justice of the Peace Grace Lau ruled Tuesday that photographs taken by cameras at red lights are not admissible as evidence. Believed to be the first in the province, the ruling rejects a red-light photo as evidence because a code was superimposed on it instead of the location where the offence took place.
While the City of Toronto has asked the courts to adjourn all trials involving tickets issued as a result of cameras posted on Toronto street corners pending an appeal of the ruling, it’s business as usual in Ottawa. City lawyer Dave White, who also chairs the provincial Red Light Prosecutor Working Group, said the decision isn’t precedent-setting since it was handed down by a justice of the peace. Decisions at that level face up to four levels of appeal. Believing an appeal will be successful, White expects most offenders to be convicted. If Toronto’s appeal fails, Les Kelman, director of Toronto’s traffic management center, said the camera manufacturer will be asked to change the program so the intersection appears on all photos or city officials will simply ask the province to amend the section of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act that deals with red-light cameras to specifically allow codes instead of locations.
Until that happens, Lawrie’s advice to anyone receiving one of the $190 tickets is to plead not guilty. “Yes, a picture is worth a thousand words, but that picture has to be accurate for it to be worth anything,” he said, adding there’s often extenuating circumstances not shown in the photo.
Oct 28, 2003 -- The London Free Press
FIGHTING TICKETS CAN BE PERILOUS
Oct 28, 2003
MARYANNA LEWYCKYJ
The London Free Press
To the angry motorist, her insurer's actions defied both fairness and common sense. I recently got an earful from an irate driver who was ticketed by a police officer for an improper stop. She was so upset at the ticket -- for an offence she insists she didn't commit -- that she got rattled and couldn't find her proof of insurance in her glove box. So on top of the moving violation, she was cited for failing to provide proof of insurance, although she had valid coverage at the time.
Armed with a letter from her insurer verifying she indeed had insurance on the day in question, she went to court to defend herself on both violations. Trouble was, when she was making her case against the improper stop, she called the police officer a liar. At that point, the judge lost patience and found her guilty on both offences. Not only did she have to pay the applicable fines, but her insurer refused to renew her coverage.
The reason? The conviction for failure to provide proof of insurance was her third offence (along with a speeding ticket and the improper stop) in a short period of time. That caused her insurance premiums to soar from $125 a month to $300 a month, an increase of 140 per cent, although she's never filed an insurance claim.
This sorry tale has a few pointed lessons for consumers:
- Paperwork penalties: It's not just moving violations that can affect your insurance rates. Failure to produce certain documents can also boost your rates. Always make sure you have your driver's licence, vehicle registration, and insurance papers handy when you get behind the wheel.
- Grace under fire: Contrary to popular opinion, there is no legally mandated 48-hour grace period for motorists to produce proof of registration, licence or insurance. "There is this misconception that police officers must give you 48 or 72 hours to report with these documents," said Brian Lawrie, a former police officer and founder of the POINTTS ticket-fighting service. While police officers have the discretion to simply warn motorists rather than laying charges, motorists don't have the right to produce driving documents later.
- Attitude matters: If you're pulled over by police, save your arguments for court and keep your cool. Suggesting the police officer should be out chasing murderers -- not speeders -- will make you memorable for all the wrong reasons. Lawrie says police officers are more likely to keep copious notes for motorists perceived as troublemakers. "You never want to make yourself memorable to the police officer," Lawrie says. The more meagre an officer's notes are, the greater the likelihood an officer will be at a disadvantage during a thorough cross-examination.
- Courting disaster: Motorists who are short-tempered and have little grasp of traffic laws can sabotage even a solid case. "Even people who are normally in control, once they get into a courtroom, emotions can come into play," Lawrie says.
Although motorists might fear sky-high legal bills to fight an offence, some ticket agents (such as POINTTS) will offer free consultations to broadly assess cases and weed out sure-fire losers. "The last thing we want is to run to court with a whole string of people who are obviously guilty and wasting everyone's time," Lawrie said.
- Losing hurts: Motorists need to look beyond the fine on the face of a ticket when deciding whether to fight it. The single mother cited at the beginning of this column --who didn't obtain any legal advice before heading to court because she couldn't "afford" it -- is now paying $2,100 a year more in insurance. If shelling out a few hundred dollars might save you thousands, consider expert help.
- Chasing copouts: Some motorists head to court simply on the hopes the police officer involved won't appear. However, Lawrie says drivers shouldn't put much stock in that. "It's a duty for them and they have to appear," Lawrie said. "A police officer who doesn't show up without a proper excuse is liable to be disciplined and lose some pay." A long time ago, when court schedules weren't kept in computers, errors and oversights were more likely. Automation has made such glitches rare. "The days of police officers not showing up are far and few between."
- Beef relief: Many motorists are unaware every auto insurer in Ontario is required to have an in-house ombudsman dedicated to handling policyholder beefs. If you're getting stonewalled on an insurance problem, ask your insurer for the name of the firm's consumer complaint liaison officer (the formal title for the ombudsman).
You also can complain to Ontario's Insurance Ombudsman, part of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. FSCO's phone number is 416-250-7250 or 1-800-668-0128.
The address is 5160 Yonge St., Box 85, Toronto M2N 6L9.
I recently spoke to a woman who was told her premiums would jump to $8,000 a year from $800 a year. She successfully fought the proposed increase through her insurer's ombudsman.
Jun 11.2004 -- The Edmonton Sun
Bolstad speeding plan won't work
By KERRY DIOTTE -- For the Edmonton Sun
It is a good thing Ward 2 Coun. Allan Bolstad is retiring after his latest three-year term ends this October.
That's because he is getting seriously annoying. (Not that he wasn't annoying before.) Bolstad, first elected in 1992, will be best remembered for his dogged support of the city's draconian smoking and cat bylaws.
But the councillor who began his career as slightly right of centre and became left-leaning is bound and determined to go out with a meddlesome bang.
His latest would-be bit of socialist social engineering (is there any other kind?) is to reduce the speed limits on residential streets from 50 kmh to 40 kmh - a move that would all but turn our pothole-pocked roads into parking lots.
In April, Bolstad began his push for the ridiculously low speed limits. This week he argued that drivers going more than 50 kmh were causing a hazard to kids and others who play on or near streets "chasing after soccer balls and not looking."
Luckily, there does not appear to be any real support for Bolstad's fuddy-duddy desires. An administration report this week to council's transportation and streets committee said that speeding in residential areas is not considered a big problem. Most crashes happen on busy roads.
But those words from officials did not dampen Bolstad's lust to attack a problem that seemingly does not exist.
He vowed to begin reporting speeders on residential streets and badgering cops to set up radar traps there.
What's more, if Bolstad got his way, police in residential areas would hand out tickets to drivers going only a few kilometres over the posted 50-kmh limit. Cops now allow a 14-kmh over-the-limit tolerance level.
"Set radar to start ticketing people as soon as they start hitting 52, 53, 54 (kmh)," he told Sun city hall reporter Andrea Sands.
"I'll look forward to getting photo radar installed on a temporary basis. Put it here for a week, put it there for a week, see if we can address speeding that way."
Bolstad's brash desires are completely out to lunch for several reasons.
Motorists in Edmonton are already arguably the most heavily targeted in North America by photo radar and laser radar.
In 2001 alone, city police issued 194,500 speeding tickets. Photo radar and red-light cameras raise about $14 million annually.
Despite this heavy approach, our streets are no safer. There were 33 fatalities in 2003, far more than the 20 deaths in 2002.
Besides, so-called residential streets are largely a misnomer. Many largely commercial streets with several lanes in both directions have a 50-kmh speed limit. That includes main east-west thoroughfares like 104 Avenue.
Reducing speed limits on those "residential" streets would reduce our already slow traffic flow to a crawl.
The president of a nationwide traffic tickets-fighting company scoffed at Bolstad's notions. "There's a limit to the accuracy of radar devices," said Brian Lawrie, president of Pointts.
"Besides, if somebody is hit by a car in a residential street, does (Bolstad) think the person would be less injured at 40 kmh instead of 41 KMH?"
Lawrie figures the solution to safer streets is having fewer toll-booth-style radar traps and more cops patrolling.
It appears Bolstad's bleatings have little support from fellow councillors, so he likely will not realize his goal to pass one last bit of meddlesome legislation.
I suppose we should all wish you a happy retirement from politics, Allan.
I hope you go on to another career that proves truly rewarding. I just pray it does not have anything to do with traffic engineering in Edmonton.
November 29,2004 -- ThunderBay Source
Staffing Lack Could Benefit Ticket Holders
Tb News Source
Thunder Bay's City Solicitor says some traffic tickets may have to be dismissed if more staff aren't added to the Provincial Offences division.
The POA office is facing more and more pressure to defend tickets laid by City police and the O.P.P. and it appears the private company POINTTS, is partially responsible for the backlog.
It's been estimated that 30 thousand traffic tickets were handed out by police in the Thunder Bay District last year and out of those 30 thousand, two thousand, or 7 percent, were contested in Provincial Offences court. City Solicitor Rosalie Evans says a large number of those cases were defended by POINTTS, the company that calls itself the traffic ticket specialists.
Evans says it's becoming a big burden on Provincial Offenses prosecutor Bernard Caron and she's recommended to City Council that an extra staff member be hired, to help the keep up with the growing demands for evidence from POINTTS.
Rod Patton says POINTTS helped defend 600 traffic ticket cases last year. That's up from 100 cases four years ago.
Evans agrees that POINTTS has every right to demand disclosure of evidence and Paddon says he won't go to court without all the facts. But Evans says the POA office was on the verge of having to dismiss cases, because of the paperwork.
City Council has approved the additional staffing so far in its 2005 budget deliberations. Evans says even with the added costs, the POA office will continue to bring in about a million dollars more a year than it spends.
March 14,2006 -- Edmonton Sun
Cop not trained on current laser, so ticket tossed
By ELIZA BARLOW, EDMONTON SUNN SUN
A $156 speeding ticket was thrown out of court yesterday after it was revealed a city cop wasn't trained to run the laser model he used to nab the alleged speeder.
And the paralegal who successfully fought the ticket says the decision throws the legitimacy of thousands of speeding tickets into doubt.
"There's hundreds of thousands of tickets out there that should all be suspended until this proceeds to the Court of Appeal," said Dave Walkeden, an agent with the paralegal firm POINTTS and a retired city traffic cop.
"If they've already paid their ticket they can file an appeal, based on this decision, to get their money back."
Crown prosecutors are already planning an appeal of the traffic commissioner's decision.
"It's our belief that there's case law that the constables don't have to be trained on every separate type of laser," said Peter Forbes, traffic unit leader at the Edmonton Crown prosecutors' office.
"If you've trained on one (model), they all operate on the same principle."
Walkeden said his client, Christopher Tkachuk, 27, was dinged with the $156 ticket on June 16 on the Sherwood Park Freeway near 50 Street.
Tkachuk, a heavy duty mechanic, was accused of driving 106 kmh in an 80-kmh zone. He opted to fight the ticket so the demerits wouldn't drive up the cost of his insurance.
Walkeden said it was revealed at Tkachuk's trial yesterday that the cop operating the laser that day hadn't been trained to use that specific laser model.
Walkeden said the constable was trained on an older version of the equipment which came out in the early 1990s; the one he used to nab Tkachuk came out in 2003.
"In 2003, he was handed this model and the operator's manual and was told to use it," said Walkeden, who was a trainer in the Edmonton Police Service traffic division until he retired from the force in 2004.
"Without specific training in this instrument, he shouldn't be using it. You would not expect a licensed pilot trained to fly a Cessna 172 to jump into a Boeing 737 and fly to Europe."
EPS Staff Sgt. Darren Eastcott, head of the traffic section, said he's confident all traffic section cops are properly trained for the equipment they're using.
"The equipment is basically the same," he said. "One model to the next, there's not that much of a difference.
"You have to look at what's being lost as the focus here... was the guy speeding? He probably was."
Tkachuk, though elated over his win in court, said he was "disgusted" to find out the officer wasn't specifically trained on the model of laser he was using.
"I vouch for all tradespeople in Alberta - we have to jump through so many hoops (to be certified). It's kind of disgusting that the police are cutting corners and not training these guys to do their job properly."
|
