Hiring a pro to beat a traffic ticket has merit

Eric Lai

SPECIAL TO THE STAR

Should you hire a professional to fight a traffic ticket? That's the million-dollar question – plus demerit points.

Basically, you don't need an agent or lawyer in these situations:

To request a court date or first appearance meeting; if you intend to plead guilty to a lesser charge.

If the ticket is for failure to produce a document (permit, licence, insurance), because the charge is typically dropped when a valid one is presented at first appearance or trial.

For petty charges (such as plate sticker in wrong place) where no demerit points are involved.

Representation is recommended for the following:

Moving violations (particularly if collision is involved).

Part 3 summons charges where a court appearance is mandatory.

If you want to dispute a charge at trial rather than take a plea.

For criminal charges, stunt driving or any offence that could cost you your licence.

Remember that a conviction for a moving violation or criminal driving offence could cost you thousands in increased insurance premiums.

Many ticket paralegals offer a free initial consultation, but check their qualifications.

Anyone can call themselves a paralegal; however, not all are up to the task.

When a friend was charged with "amber light fail to stop," I challenged Malcolm Higgins, owner of Tickettalk.ca Paralegal Services in Toronto, to show us what a professional could do.

This presented a unique opportunity, because a relative of mine who has no legal training had defended herself on the same charge recently and I could contrast the differences between the two experiences.

Higgins served for 12 years as a Toronto traffic officer and was also a prosecutor before becoming a paralegal.

He was aware that I'd publicize the outcome, good or bad, but eagerly accepted the case to demonstrate his skills.

Drivers must stop for an amber light if they can, but may proceed with caution in some instances.

In this case, the defendant saw the light turn amber but felt he couldn't stop in time.

Believing that even if he locked his brakes he would have ended up inside the intersection, he proceeded through.

The action was completed safely with no other traffic affected. However, an officer observing felt the driver could have stopped and laid the charge.

In defending this case, Higgins first requested disclosure of the officer's notes prior to trial and spotted several deficiencies.

On the trial date, Higgins questioned the officer outside of court and found she didn't know the duration of the amber light, the location of the stop line, or the point at which the light turned red after the defendant had entered the intersection.

He then held a pre-trial meeting with the prosecutor and, after the points were agreed to be necessary evidence, the charge was withdrawn.

This is an oversimplified account, however – Higgins was working overtime since the rookie officer was adamant about proceeding to trial regardless.

Likewise, the senior traffic officer in my relative's case was equally stubborn despite facing compelling pre-trial arguments.

While both cases ended in dismissal, my relative's case went to a full 45-minute trial and she described it as a terrifying, arduous ordeal from start to finish. (In the past, she'd also been wrongly convicted of speeding and had to go to appeals court to have the decision thrown out.)

In this case, Higgins' knowledge of the law prevented the trial from even taking place.

And the defendant, who didn't have to say a word in court, was obviously pleased with the outcome.

More videos from Wheels.ca and our partners