Cour Superieure judgement on photo radar - does it affect red light photo radar etc ?

Hi , I in the last year got a "red light" photo radar ticket. I would like to know the implications of the recent Superior Court judgement on the issue. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-photo-radar-1.3874485

1. Does the judgement affect , red light photo radar or just speed photo radar?

2. Does the judgement say that an officer needs to be witness to the infraction at the physical location of said infraction --( this was the only legal point that was ambiguous to me).

3. Many months ago, (before cbc news article) I requested as part of communication of proof showing calibration and maintenance history of said photo radar -- the minster of justice refused to divulge that information, how does this affect my case and what should I say to the judge about this?


Thank you in advance for all serious comments.

Selon moi les 2 jugement recent peuvent probabalement s'appliqué

le jugement que tu mentione sur la validité de la preuve

et l'autre jugement

que le les billets doit etre emis en utilisant l'article qui fait que l'infraction va au proprietaire

si le ticket est emis en utilsant l'article que le ticket va au conducteur... la couronne ne posséderait pas la preuve de qui etait le conducteur lors des événements

d'Autre article et le jugement

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/n...lusieurs-constats-pourraient-etre-annules.php

http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/do...cGhvdG9yYWRhciBpbGxlZ2FsAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1


tiens ca été discuté ici

https://www.montrealracing.com/foru...photo-un-constat-dinfraction-invalide-en-Cour

le jugement

https://www.scribd.com/document/325096667/Jugement-Audette-c-DPCP#from_embed

Interesting developments, today.

Background: I got a red light photo radar ticket. How they do it , is that they send you two pictures, in both pictures , I am clearly stopped. I challenged the ticket, requesting 1. divulgation des preuves 2. historique de calibration.

Here is where shit gets interesting.

- I receive a the original ticket with the two photos as divulgation des preuves (photo #1 = 0.5 seconds after red light --> photo #2 = 2.5 seconds after red light). In both photos , I am behind the line , I was like WTF ! I never crossed the line but I still got a ticket!

- Ttoday I got a letter from the SQ with a type written letter saying that it was calibrated in jan 2016 , With the 2016 calibration data TYPE WRITTEN , then signed off on in JAN 2017. WTF ?????
If I did a calibration report at a photo radar station (in 2016), shouldn't it be hand written and have a 2016 date on it ? It almost seems like they made up fradulent evidence just because I asked for it

-Then in another SQ document that they sent me, they guy who signed off on the ticket originally gives a sworn statement saying --- oh BTW I was not actually there -- despite his swearing that he saw this.

FUCK I am seriously thinking about going to the news--- its almost as if all the evidence they sent me was manufactured to cover their asses.

For hand written vs type written it's not a valid point...the calibration stuff i see ...the tech just make a formal copy and print and sign it...and it's fully lidgit
OK its not photo radar the one i see... but it's probably the same

like the report i do... i fill the test sheet by hand on site... type it print it and sign it and send it to the customer....


if both picture show that you haven't pass the line.... seem's there proof if not that good

Is yout ticket one of the old that were given to the driver instead of the owner of the car ??

Le gouvernement avaient jusqu'au 28 décembre 2016 pour contester je crois, est-ce que quelqu'un sait si il y a eu du nouveau ?

mrdouble99 said:

Le gouvernement avaient jusqu'au 28 décembre 2016 pour contester je crois, est-ce que quelqu'un sait si il y a eu du nouveau ?

Click to expand...

Salut monsieur double99, non tout a fait, j'ai pas eu des nouvelles dans le journal , mais nouveaur faits interesants .......... au dela de divulgation des preuves, j'ai recu , un page d'attestation signes par l'agent dde l'SQ qui dit que il n'a, pas personellement vu l'infraction. . Je crois que c'est un preuve tres fort. Ben quand j'ai plusieur update je vias le poster.

GUYS HELP EVEN AFTER SERGE CIMON's JUDGEMENT PHOTO RADAR IS STILL NOT DEAD !!!!!!!!


Ok here is what has happened over the last few months.

-Got a red light --- photo radar -- ticket in 2016
-Got an early 2017 court date (palais du justice weekday morning ---- took time out from work showed up --- just to have prosecutor tell me that they are postponing case !!!!!!! to later in 2017, (because someone is challenging the photo proof). ok...
-Get a call that the prosecutor is trying to have the manufacturer of the photo radar testify by get this video link !!!!!

Manufacturer testimony via Video Link ???? for a traffic case ? They must be trying to hide something deeply flawed abotu photo radar for them to go that far and get video link testimony. Problem is I don't have a lawyer , and they are trying to use me as a test case. Would any lawyer be interested in taking my case pro-bobno as I feel that its going to end up being controversial.

student13 said:

GUYS HELP EVEN AFTER SERGE CIMON's JUDGEMENT PHOTO RADAR IS STILL NOT DEAD !!!!!!!!


Ok here is what has happened over the last few months.

-Got a red light --- photo radar -- ticket in 2016
-Got an early 2017 court date (palais du justice weekday morning ---- took time out from work showed up --- just to have prosecutor tell me that they are postponing case !!!!!!! to later in 2017, (because someone is challenging the photo proof). ok...
-Get a call that the prosecutor is trying to have the manufacturer of the photo radar testify by get this video link !!!!!

Manufacturer testimony via Video Link ???? for a traffic case ? They must be trying to hide something deeply flawed abotu photo radar for them to go that far and get video link testimony. Problem is I don't have a lawyer , and they are trying to use me as a test case. Would any lawyer be interested in taking my case pro-bobno as I feel that its going to end up being controversial.

Click to expand...

La preuve était rejeté parce que c'etait considéré du oui dire (des propos rapportés).

Si je me souviens bien c'etait sur la calibration.


Si tu amene la personne qui a fait la dite calibration en cours la défence de oui dire tombe ...

"...ruled that the way provincial police systematically process such tickets is wrong, and he called on authorities to fix it," Rousseau told CBC News.
Cimon ruled that a real person must provide evidence that the machine is in working order, and that there's proper signage in the area."

I guess you are right, but does the OFFICER have to be there in-person to witness the machine is working or does the calibration technician ?

student13 said:

"...ruled that the way provincial police systematically process such tickets is wrong, and he called on authorities to fix it," Rousseau told CBC News.
Cimon ruled that a real person must provide evidence that the machine is in working order, and that there's proper signage in the area."

I guess you are right, but does the OFFICER have to be there in-person to witness the machine is working or does the calibration technician ?

Click to expand...

i would say it's not different that any device calibrated by another person other that the police officer and presented to court

was the radar calibrated ... yes it was i that date and that date shown on the paper here.... for sure the OFFICER was not there in those event

the officier can't always be there otherwise any crime seen by somebody else could not be prosecuted in court

that why they have to bring the guy who did see it or did the jobs in court


I would say the last thing you can argue is was every thing ok at the site AT THAT EXACT MOMENT

when a OFFICER do radar they do check speed sign and stuff to make sure they won't be fucked...

with photo radar they will bring the guys in that will confirm that every thing was there at the time of calibration.... and was probably there at the next calibration

is it legaly sound to try to invoque that they could have been missing in between ...maybe, maybe not.. i would not try it

but if i remember they where not sure on another approach...not 100% sure ...since NOBODY saw the infraction ... and picture are not that good at showing speed .... unless there are line on the ground and the picture are time specific ...

i tough it was like that ... in some place (not Quebec) people have confirm they where not guilty using picture of the ticket and the line on the ground...but i think in quebec they didn't use that options...to prevent any obvious error lol

So even with the technician and the officer and one set of picture ... the only proof is the radar that triggers there is no way to visualy check if it's a false positive

there could be something i forgot or don't know... i never was lucky enough to receive one of those ticket

Case ended up being dismissed ........ basically prosecutor strategy is to make you show up to court and if you show up they dismiss it .

Or if they try to prosecute you and go through with it on the stand , ask the judge why the cop was not personally there to verify when he swore he did on paper or heresay ....... that's what a few people did