AtIt’s one of the most common questions from drivers who decide to handle a traffic ticket on their own. You’ve got an early resolution meeting coming up. You want to say the right thing. You’re hoping to get the charge withdrawn or at least reduced to something less damaging.
So what do you say?
The honest answer is more complicated than most drivers want to hear – and understanding why is more useful than a script.
Key takeaways
- Early resolution (ER) meetings in Ontario are now typically conducted by phone or video
- The type of charge you’re facing – absolute liability vs. strict liability – determines what you can actually say that matters
- Prosecutors often have a position before you say a word – sometimes in writing before the meeting begins
- Common explanations drivers offer typically have no legal impact on absolute liability charges
- The wrong approach can actually make things worse by frustrating the prosecutor
- How a professional conducts an ER meeting is different from how an unrepresented person does
- Professional representation puts you in the strongest possible position before you say anything
How early resolution meetings work in Ontario today
The format has changed
Early resolution meetings in Ontario are no longer necessarily in-person courthouse visits. For most people today, an early resolution meeting happens by phone. In some cases, where you have access to a computer and camera, it can be conducted via video. Either way, you’re speaking directly with a prosecutor assigned to your matter.
The date and format will typically be outlined on the notice you receive – either in the mail or by email – with the designation “ER” or “Early Resolution.” That meeting is your opportunity to discuss the charge before it proceeds to trial.
The two types of charges and why the difference matters
Before you walk into that meeting – or dial into it – you need to understand the difference between a strict liability offence and an absolute liability offence. It’s one of the most important distinctions in Ontario traffic law and it directly affects what you can say that will actually have any impact.
Most speeding tickets, for example, are absolute liability offences. In absolute liability, the act itself is the offence. It doesn’t matter why it happened. Intent, circumstances and explanations are legally irrelevant to whether the offence occurred.
Strict liability offences allow for a due diligence defence – meaning that if you took all reasonable steps to avoid the violation, that matters. Absolute liability offences do not. That distinction shapes everything about how a meeting should be approached.
What most drivers say – and why it usually doesn’t help
The explanations that don’t land
Drivers heading into early resolution meetings with a speeding charge – the most common ticket people handle on their own – typically arrive with an explanation they’re convinced will change things.
“My speedometer was broken at the time.”
“I had to use the bathroom urgently.”
“I didn’t realize the speed limit had changed.”
In their mind, telling the prosecutor something – anything – will tip the balance toward a withdrawal or a better result. The intention makes sense. The legal reality doesn’t match it.
For an absolute liability charge like speeding, those explanations carry no weight in terms of whether the offence occurred. The prosecutor knows this. And hearing explanations that have no bearing on the charge sometimes produces the opposite effect of what the driver intended.
The prosecutor’s position often exists before you speak
Here’s what many drivers don’t know going in: in many cases, the prosecutor has already formed a position before the meeting starts.
Whether it’s “I’m not offering anything on this matter” or “I’ll offer a reduction to a lesser charge” – that position is often decided based on the file before any conversation takes place.
More recently, this has become even more direct. Some prosecutors now send their position in writing before the early resolution meeting even happens. The driver hasn’t spoken to anyone yet, hasn’t made their case, hasn’t said a word – and the offer (or the absence of one) is already sitting in their inbox.
In those situations, what you say in the meeting often has very little ability to change the outcome. You’re responding to a pre-determined position, not building toward one.
When what you say can make things worse
This is the part most people don’t anticipate.
There are things you can say in an early resolution meeting that might help marginally. There are many more things you can say that actively work against you.
An unrepresented driver who comes into a meeting poorly prepared, who makes arguments that don’t apply to the charge, who pushes back on the prosecutor in an unproductive way or who simply wastes the meeting’s time runs a real risk of frustrating the person on the other side. And a frustrated prosecutor is more likely to say: “This is a trial I want to conduct.”
By trying to negotiate without the right knowledge, a driver can accidentally signal that the matter should be contested – and not in the way they intended. That’s a position no driver benefits from.
Why professional representation changes the dynamic
The way an early resolution meeting is conducted by an experienced legal professional is fundamentally different from how it goes when an unrepresented person attempts the same meeting.
What changes with representation
A professional understands the type of charge, knows which arguments are relevant and which aren’t, can read the prosecutor’s position accurately and knows how to respond to a pre-determined stance in a way that still creates room for movement.
Understanding when early resolution is the right path and when a trial is a better option is itself a skill that develops over years of handling these matters. An unrepresented driver making that choice on the fly during the meeting is at a significant disadvantage.
The timing matters too
Approaching legal representation before the early resolution meeting – rather than after it hasn’t gone the way you hoped – puts you in the strongest possible position. Once you’ve already attended and spoken to the prosecutor, the options narrow. The things that were said are part of the record. What might have been negotiable before the meeting has already been addressed.
Coming in with representation before the meeting means the first contact with the prosecutor is professional, informed and strategic. That matters in a process where first impressions and knowledge of what to actually say are everything.
Frequently asked questions
What should I not say at an early resolution meeting?
Avoid explanations that don’t have legal relevance to the type of charge you’re facing. For absolute liability offences like speeding, personal circumstances – broken speedometers, urgent bathroom needs, distractions – don’t affect whether the offence occurred and won’t move the prosecutor’s position. Bringing these up often wastes time and can create an adversarial dynamic that closes off negotiation rather than opening it.
What if the prosecutor already sent their position before the meeting?
This happens more frequently now. If you’ve received the prosecutor’s position in writing before the meeting, you’re already working with a narrower set of options. How you respond to that pre-stated position matters. Pushing back without knowing what arguments are actually applicable to your charge can backfire. That’s a situation where having someone who knows what to say is particularly valuable.
Is it better to go to trial instead of early resolution?
It depends entirely on the charge, the evidence and the offer being made. Understanding the difference between early resolution and the trial option is essential before deciding which path to take. Neither is automatically better – the right choice depends on what the prosecutor is offering, what defences might exist and what the realistic outcomes at trial look like for your specific matter.
The question of what to say at an early resolution meeting doesn’t have a simple answer – because the answer depends on the type of charge, the prosecutor’s position, the specific facts and a working knowledge of what arguments actually carry weight in that context.
What’s clear is that going in without that knowledge creates real risk. Not just the risk of not getting the result you want, but the risk of actively making the situation worse.
Contact OTD Legal before your early resolution meeting – not after. That’s when the conversation does the most good.
Video Transcription:
What to say at an early resolution meeting. Many of my clients have reported that they’ve attempted to conduct an early resolution meeting and did not know what to say. I’m going to tell you what to say, and what may have value. But I’d like to first say that the way my firm, or anyone from my firm—or even myself—would approach an early resolution meeting is going to be significantly different from the average member of the public out there.
So, the best way to describe what to say is to start with what would not have any value if you said it. Let’s say you have a piece of paper that came in the mail or was emailed to you. It gives you a date, and it might say something like ER (Early Resolution). In Ontario these days, that’s usually done by a phone call for most people.
If you have the ability to sit at your computer in front of a camera, you can do it “in camera.” What will happen in those situations is you’re going to meet directly with one of the prosecutors involved. Now, you’re going to be dealing with one of two things. If you review the other videos I posted, you’ll understand the difference between a strict liability offense and an absolute liability offense. It’s important to know that difference if you’re attending one of these ER meetings.
The best example I can provide right now, regarding what you’d want to say, is to consider a speeding ticket. That’s probably the most common thing people deal with on their own. In a situation like that, all kinds of thoughts go through the mind of someone charged. They have this desire to tell the prosecutor something, hoping the charge will be withdrawn or something will be done about it.
Often, clients say things like, “My speedometer was broken at that time,” or “I had to go to the bathroom.” In their mind, they think, “If I just tell the prosecutor this, I’ll get the result I want,” whether that’s withdrawal or reduction of the charge.
What I know from these types of meetings and these types of charges—absolute liability speeding—is that, before you even arrive at that meeting, before you say anything, the prosecutor usually already has a position in mind. Whether it’s “I’m not going to do anything for this person” or “I’m going to offer them some sort of a reduction.”
So, the reality is that as you conduct your ER meeting and present what you think you should say, it’s often already pre-decided. If not, then some—or most—of the things you say in that absolute liability regime have no impact anyway.
The reality is it’s going to be unproductive, and often, over the many years I’ve been doing this, I find clients very disappointed in that situation. The same is true at the other end of the spectrum with something like careless driving—it’s also very unproductive.
Clients try to handle it on their own because they want to know what to say to achieve the result they want. Most people want the charge withdrawn, or if not withdrawn, then reduced to something better for their lives.
There are certain things you can say that might help, but there are many more that can make the situation worse. I’ve already mentioned that when you enter those meetings, most of the time, the prosecutor has already made up their mind. Recently, I’ve seen ER meetings where prosecutors send out their position in advance. So, you haven’t said a word, haven’t spoken to anyone, certainly not to the prosecutor, yet you’ve already received their stance before even attending.
In those situations, especially if you’re representing yourself, it’s virtually impossible for me to tell you what to say to fix it. You’ve already got the result you’re going to get, and that’s as good as it’s going to get.
These situations always make me sigh because I’m a bit disappointed we didn’t get the opportunity to do that meeting for you. We know what to say, and we know the context—whether it’s absolute liability or strict liability.
The way those ER meetings are conducted with someone like myself is very different than with an unrepresented person. To fully answer the question on what to say, I’d suggest you review the other videos so you know the difference. You need to understand that certain things you say might just annoy the prosecutor, which could frustrate them enough to think, “This is a trial I want to conduct.”
Because you’ve annoyed the prosecutor. These are the types of things you want to be aware of before you enter that meeting. And remember, if you’re considering help from a licensed lawyer or paralegal, it’s always better—and I know this is self-serving—but it’s always better to approach us first and let someone who does this regularly conduct that meeting for you. That puts you in a position of the most advantage.
