I just got a notice of intent to prohibit my lisense, but it says there I can write a appeal letter, why I shud not be imposed, or reduced duration of prohabit.
They are asking to 90days, but I rly need to drive...
I just need a one or two paragraph of convincing letter ... (I can pay you lot more fg)
These are the reason why I got this ticket
-on 2012 MAY02 (more than a year ago)
I drove on a bus-only lane because i was in hurry to some hospital.
So i got a these tickets
"Motor Vehicle Act 125 Disobey Traffic control device" 2pts
"Drive Contrary to restriction" 3 pts
. Those 5 points are what is giving me probations.. If someone can somehow use law words to say like
cops were pressureing me or I want evidence or something like that, or anything..
.. Or make something up like .. "I went to bus lane to make right turn, but the police officer
thought I was using that lane.. BUt it is actually legal to make right turn there, but police officer was pressure me to sign the paper.
(This is over a year ago, Im pretty sure cops don't even remember this, so you can make some stuff)
To reduce duration of my prohibit, will be thank ful!!
These are just example of what kind of excuses are successfull in letter.Arguments which are likely to be successful:
1) The most commonly successful argument is that the police officer failed to issue a proper demand, pursuant to s. 254 of the Criminal Code, which states that a demand must be made forthwith or as soon as practicable. Some cases have held that a delay of as little as 4 minutes may be too long under the circumstances. If you have received a Notice of Driving Prohibition based on a refusal to blow, it is therefore advisable that you carefully consider whether there is proof that the officer issued the demand in a lawful manner. The adjudicators have consistently held that without evidence of a proper demand, there cannot be a failure or refusal to provide a
sample.
2) Another commonly successful argument is that the police officer failed to properly document the relevant times. The times indicated in the officer's notes may not flow in a logical order (ie: the officer states that you were driving at 22:26, but that they issued the breath demand at 22:18, theoretically before you were driving) or the officer fails to note the date and time of either the demand or the breath
sample results. Errors such as these call the evidence into question. The adjudicators have consistently held that in the face of such errors, the evidence before them is insufficient to satisfy them that the driver's blood alcohol content was over .08 within 3 hours of operating or having care or control of a motor vehicle.
3) If any of the police officer's evidence is missing, you may also be successful in arguing that they have failed to disclose all the essential information as required by s.94.3 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The Courts have ruled that compliance with this legislation is mandatory and that these documents, if they exist, must be forwarded to the Superintendent. The Courts have also said that the adjudicator should not proceed until he/she has inquired as to the whereabouts and existence of any missing documentation to ensure that there either is no such document, or to obtain it as part of the evidence before a re-hearing occurs.
Where essential information is missing and unobtainable, the reliability and accuracy of the evidence is called into question and the adjudicators have found that because the police did not disclose essential information, the driving prohibition must be revoked.
4) If the police officer has failed to submit their Report to the Superintendent in the proper form, as required by s.94.3 of the Motor Vehicle Act, you may also be successful in arguing that their report was therefore flawed or improperly filed, and the prohibition should be canceled.
5) It is also important that the police officer's Report to the Superintendent be properly sworn or affirmed as required by s.94.3 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Where the officer has not confirmed the truth of the evidence, the adjudicator may not consider it as evidence. Without that report, you may be able to successfully argue that there is insufficient evidence on which the adjudicator can uphold the driving prohibition.
6) A copy of the certificate of analysis, if one exists, is also required by s.94.3 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Where a certificate is not produced or the results on the tickets are illegible, you may be able to successfully argue that there is insufficient evidence of your blood alcohol content and that your prohibition must be revoked.
Note: While the above 6 points represent the most commonly successful arguments, there may be other submissions that would allow for your prohibition to be revoked, so make sure you carefully consider all of the evidence. You may also want to consult with a lawyer who has experience with this type of case, especially if you had a reasonable excuse for failing or refusing to comply with the demand for a breath or blood alcohol test, because those arguments can be very complicated.
Arguments which are likely to be unsuccessful:
1) As mentioned above, “hardship” is not a valid ground that the adjudicator may consider. Therefore any arguments along the lines of “I will lose my job if I am unable to drive” or “I need to be able to drive to medical appointments” will be unsuccessful. While the reasons you want to retain your licence are important to you, they are not relevant to establishing your guilt or innocence, so do not waste your time trying to persuade the adjudicator that your review should be successful simply because you need to be able to drive.
2) “It's not fair” is also not a valid argument. The Courts have consistently held that there is nothing unfair about the legislation or the potential impact on your driving record, so again, do not waste your time trying to argue “fairness” with the adjudicator.
This post was edited by qkrgudwlssla on Oct 9 2013 04:19pm