I am definately going to fight that ticket.
1 Question though:
Is it possible to find out what the plea bargain lesser charge is? And then decide to go with plea bargain or not?
Yes.
--copied directly from the above link be sure to read it
A first appearance is not a trial date (you shouldn't be going to trial on that day). You have a chance to speak/bargain with the prosecution about your particular charge. They will almost always offer you a plea-bargain. If you accept, you can usually accept this plea-bargain on that day, so you do not have to come back for your original trial date. You can request a first appearance by asking in person at the court house, although some will allow you to schedule one by phone.
This section may also be of some use to you
D) Fighting a careless charge
Careless charges are often laid when the officer doesn't know what charge to give, or wants to overcharge (knowing that it will be plea-bargained to a lesser offence in court). For example, if you went into a corner too fast and wiped out, if an officer arrives, they may slap you with a careless charge. As usual, the burden on the Crown is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that your actions were careless. Unless you can show that what you did was without negligence or fault on your part (either through the crown's evidence, or your own testimony), a conviction is likely. The defence of due diligence applies.
A common occurrence is for the officer to lay a careless driving charge after the fact (i.e. the officer wasn't present at the time, and only arrived after the incident). If this is the case, you are in good shape. If it was a single vehicle accident (ie: no other people involved) and there are no other witnesses, you are in excellent shape. In this case, the only evidence against you is indirect or circumstantial evidence (evidence which was not witnessed first hand, but from which logical inferences can be drawn - e.g.: you go to bed, and wake up with snow on your lawn. You now have circumstantial evidence that it snowed last night). If there is only circumstantial evidence against you, the court follows the rule in "Hodge's Case" (an old English case). This rule requires that, before the court can find the defendant guilty, it must be satisfied that the circumstantial evidence must be such as to leave no reasonable explanation but that which indicates the guilt of the accused. In plain english, when the evidence against you is purely circumstantial, you can't be found guilty if you have a reasonable excuse/explanation for what happened, and the evidence does not contradict your explanation.
An example: It is winter, and you you rear-end someone. The officer arrives at the scene, and gives you a careless driving charge. There are no witnesses, and the court did not subpoena the other driver to testify against you. When you take it to court, the only evidence against you is circumstantial (the officer's testimony - the officer arrived after the incident). You plead not-guilty, and give your testimony saying that you saw the car in front of you stop suddenly, you applied the brakes as hard as you could, but there was ice on the road, and you still ended up hitting the other car. In this case, the evidence against you is purely circumstantial, and you have offered evidence which supports a rational alternative conclusion to the careless driving charge.
Careless driving is a kind of nebulous charge - the wording in the HTA is very vague, so it is not possible to define what exactly constitutes careless driving, and what doesn't ("without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway"). Just because you have been charged with it, does not mean you are guilty. The amount of case law on careless driving charges is vast, and it should be easy to find similar cases/cases to support your situation.
An addition, from an earlier post regarding fighting a careless charge:
Even if a collision ocurrs as a result of events under the direct control of the motorist, that does not guarantee conviction. Weather can be a valid excuse for escaping convction from a careless charge.
Consider R. v. Smith (1961, 130 C.C.C. 177 (B.C. Co. Ct.)) in which the defendant was unfamiliar with the area in question. He had been driving along a poorly lighted narrow road on a dark night when he crashed into the retaining wall of a river dyke beside the road (and was charged with careless driving). The only evidence against him was the fact of the accident itself. The court held that this evidence was insufficient to support the charge, and that it was impossible to say that the mere happening of the accident gave rise to a presumption of lack of due care and attention in the circumstances.
Consider Masters ([1980] Ont. D. Crim. Conv. 5525-07 (Co.Ct.)), in which the accused emerged from an underpass, where the roadway was wet to an icy road surface. The driver lost control of the vehicle, collided with a light standard, and was charged with careless. The accused was acquitted in court.
Also consider R. v. Johnson (1983, 45 N.B.R. (2d) 371 (N.B. Q.B.) in which the accused had dropped a cigarette on the seat and, while attempting to put it out, drove on the wrong side of the road causing a collision. On appeal, the conviction was dismissed.
Another one: R. v. Hall (Unreported, October 12, 1979, Ont. Dst. Ct. - Street J.) involved a defendant who was following a woman who stopped to make a turn onto a side street. When the driver stopped, the defendant's car came into collision with her because he was unable to stop in time. At the time, the weather conditions were adverse. It was snowing and the streets were slippery. The defendant saw her vehicle when he was a long way back. He saw her turn signal and then her brake signal and tried to stop, but was unable to do so. On appeal, the Judge found that he could not be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defedant was driving without due care and attention as he had seen the car and stated that he saw it a long way back. He may have been driving carelessly, but it is equally possible that he had simply been unable to stop because the street was slippery and that through no fault of his own, he slid a long way. The conviction was set aside.
While it is true that "best intentions" alone are not a valid defence, attempting to carry out those "best intentions" does constitute a valid defence, provided that those "best intentions" are what a typical reasonable person would have done in the same situation. This is known as the defence of "due diligence," and it is is a valid defence to a careless driving charge (among other charges). If you can show that you did everything that a reasonable person could have been expected to do to avoid the accident, and after all that, it still happened, then you are entitled to an acquittal. Your own testimony is usually sufficient, barring any contradictory evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) - e.g.: you said you tried to stop as hard as you could, bu there were no skid marks to indicate this.
The law does not require perfection. Mistake of judgement does not necessarily constitute careless driving. Drivers are held to the stadard of what the "ordinary prudent person would do in the circumstances". This standard is always shifting, depending on road, visibility, weather, and traffic conditions that exist or may reasonably be expected. Consider this passage from R. v. Beauchamp: "The law does not require of any driver that he should exhibit 'perfect nerve and presence of mind, enabling him to do the best thing possible.' It does not expect men to be more than ordinary men."
**edit I guess you started reading the link before I could finish typing up this email.
