In my view, the reason the cases go unreported is because it’ll turn the entire justice system upside down. Can you imagine how much it would cost the entire province to change every sign and street sign into a bilingual sign?
It will also require every cop to be bilingual.
The government doesn't want people to know about this law or argument, so they do not publicly report the case.
Lower courts are not require to follow decisions of other lower courts, but they are required to follow decisions of upper court due to the doctrine of of precedent, which is applied within the judicial hierarchy of a province and it would require clear and unequivocal statutory statement to the contrary to displace this rule.
R. v. Smith, (1988) 44 C.C.C. (3d) 385 (Ont. H.C.)
The argument I make has not be used in court as far as I know, I made up the argument based upon the case TC posted. I just expanded on it.
Clearly the certificates and summons are bilingual. They are bilingual for a reason, because the FLSA requires it to be. The FLSA applies because points are involved making it a provincial matter even if municipalities haven’t passed a by-law requiring it.
Therefore, my point is if the certification and summons is required to be in both languages than so does the text added by a cop. The officer must also speak both languages to the person unless the accused waives that right. In my view, because you don't request a cop to speak both languages doesn't mean you waive that right. A court could decide otherwise, though; and that is for a court to decide.
I’ll agree, on a first impression, nothing really turns on whether or not the cop speaks both languages during a stop. However, The importance of the FLSA is evidenced by the fact it has its own Act. The government cannot thus say it applies to every other government agency, but not the MTO.
Therefore, everything does turn on the FLSA because the stop wasn't conducted properly and in compliance with the law. The summons is not filled out properly or in compliance with the law. The certificate is not filled out properly or in compliance with the law.
The court can fix certificates at any time, other than set fines, but the court cannot fix summonses.
Thus, in my view, the accused does not even have to attend court.
The court will clearly enforce the fine if one does not attend and you'll be in appeal mode. A motion could be brought forth immediately to have the summons tossed, though. This is another avenue that can be pursued. However, the cop could issue a new proper summons under Part III of the POA if it's within a six month period. So one would not want to do this unless six months has lapsed.
Since 2001, the Law Society of Upper Canada has imposed the following obligations on the legal profession: advise a client of the client’s French language rights relating to the client’s matter, including where applicable
Rule 1.03 b, c and d
(b) section 530 of the Criminal Code about an accused’s right to a trial before a court that speaks the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused,
(c) section 126 of the Courts of Justice Act that requires that a proceeding in which the client is a party be conducted as a bilingual (English and French) proceeding, and
(d) subsection 5(1) of the French Language Services Act for services in French from Ontario government agencies
The police are law enforcement officers, but they are not empowered to enforce every single law that exists. Under the Police Service Act, traffic laws are NOT a core law that is under police jurisdiction.
The MTO is an agency of the government. The MTO is empowered to enforce the HTA. The MTO has given the police express authority and jurisdiction under the HTA to help the MTO enforce our traffic laws.
Thus, the police are expressly empowered under the HTA to enforce it, therefore, the police are governed by the FLSA when enforcing the MTO legislation, which is an agency of the government subject to the FLSA.
However, the police are not the only people who are emplowered under the HTA to enforce it. MTO employees and other officers appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act are deemed to be constables, and all are subject to the FLSA while enforcing the HTA on behalf of the MTO.
It is illogical to suggest the MTO officers are subject to the FLSA when enforcing the HTA but police officers are not.
To avoid an absurd result and to give effect to a statute's purpose, statutes are read and construed as a whole. The rule regarding absurd results applies only if a statute is ambiguous.
If the statute is plain and clear on its face, it must be applied as written even if a court considers the result absurd. Even though plain construction of statute may lead to an absurd result, the Court cannot rewrite the statute or insert additional provisions in the statute.
At law, the Golden rule is a form of statutory interpretation that allows a judge to depart from a word's normal meaning in order to avoid an absurd result. Statutes must be construed to avoid absurd results, thus the police are subject to the FLSA when enforcing the HTA.
As previously mentioned, all services and procedures must be in both languages. The POA articulates that the service of documents, i.e., certificates, offence notices, and summons, is a procedure. The power to stop a motor vehicle, commercial vehicle or cyclist, is also a procedure, and this is evidenced by the fact those powers are found in PART XV of the HTA, which is titled; PROCEDURE,
ARRESTS AND PENALTIES.
You will most likely not find a lower provincial court justice, who is appointed and paid by the province, to properly enforce our provincial laws. Justices are aware of the case TC posted but you never see them cite it in their decisions when others are fighting sign type tickets. They will cite all kinds of other case law to the determent of the accused, but they do not cite this one to help an accused. Justices often use unreported cases, too, so the unreported nature of this case means nothing. They know about the case and refuse to cite it, which proves they are deliberately acting in bad faith.
Think about the billions of dollars that the government has defrauded citizens out of in fines, court cost and victim surcharges when not one document was even correctly filled out, served or filed properly?
Think about how many people went to jail when not one document was even correctly filled out, served or filed properly?
Think about how many criminal lawyers we have in Ontario and not one of them properly represented their clients, yet they were still paid by either the client or legal aid, or in some cases by both?
Think about how many justices rubber stamped all of this fraud and wrongdoing?
Bear in mind, the case TC posted has nothing to do with the argument I make. That case dealt with a non-bilingual street notice sign that was not in compliance with MTO regulations. My argument is based upon court procedure documents being properly filled out and filed in accordance with the FLSA; the FLSA that all politicians, courts and justices are well aware of.
Summons in Part I of the POA are governed by POA regulations; and while the summons is in compliance with the regulation, the regulation is not in compliance with the FLSA.
The prescribed forms for summons under s. 22, Part III of the POA are to be in compliance with the rules of court, but the rules of court are not in compliance with the FLSA; and neither is the fault of citizens and the accused. It’s the fault of government.
The fact that someone might’ve signed the certificate of offence when it was issued to them does not validate the invaild documents. A person is not required to sign. And those that did sign are not afforded less protection of the law than those who did not sign.
So now think about how many people work in the legal community, politicians, Attorney Generals, lawyers, cops, crown attorneys, justices?
Think about how much money we pay them in salary each year; and not one of them has a clue of what they are doing.
Or do they?
The FLSA was enacted in 1990. That's 19 years ago. We've had the NDP, Tories and Liberals in power during those 19 years.
What has anyone employed in the legal filed or government done to correct this massive
They had a duty to do more, and in 19 years no reasonable measures and plans for compliance with this Act have been taken or made.
The Lieutenant Governor in Council could've also made a regulation exempting the MTO due to the cost the province would incur implementing the FLSA for MTO purposes.
They did not do so.
Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the Minister responsible for Francophone Affairs could've made a regulation exempting the MTO for the better administration of the Act and Province.
They did not do so.
Instead they decided to conspire to continue ripping off and falsely imprisoning citizens in violation of the law; and to deliberately un-report any successful FLSA case that was detrimental to the government.
Nevertheless, what the Supreme Court says is what matters. If you want to study law, study what they say, not what lower courts say. Lower courts, including the court of appeal, have decisions overturned all the time. If you only study what lower courts say, and believe what they say, you might find out later that their decision was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, so what you thought was the correct law, based upon what the lower court said, is in fact not correct at all.
My argument was used in one SCC case. It's a landmark ruling of the court that applies across Canada in Labour Law. In fact, since Canada is a common law nation it applies world wide; that is with other common law nations.
Any citizen can intervene on any case and receive standing in the case if the court agrees. When there is a public interest at stake the court will also not order costs against you if you lose.
This case is of a public interest, thus if lost at the lower levels and appealed to the supreme court, and lost there, I don't see the court ordering costs. But that's for the court to decide.
Appointment of officers for carrying out provisions of Act
223. (1) The Minister may appoint one or more persons on the staff of the Ministry or any other ministry of the Government of Ontario as an officer or officers for the purpose of carrying out all or any of the provisions of this Act, and any person so appointed has authority to act as a constable throughout Ontario for the purpose.
Power of officer to examine commercial vehicles
216.1 (1) Any officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act may, at any time,
examine any commercial vehicle and its contents and equipment for the purpose of ascertaining whether this Act, the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act or the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act, or the regulations under any of them, are being complied with, and the driver, operator or other person in control of the vehicle shall assist in the examination.
Power to stop commercial vehicles
(2) Any officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act may, for the purpose of an examination under subsection (1), direct, by signals or otherwise, the driver of any commercial vehicle driven on a highway to stop
, and the driver, upon being so directed, shall stop the vehicle.
Power of police officer to stop vehicle
216. (1) A police officer, in the lawful execution of his or her duties and responsibilities, may require the driver of a motor vehicle to stop
and the driver of a motor vehicle, when signalled or requested to stop by a police officer who is readily identifiable as such, shall immediately come to a safe stop.
217. (1) Every person called upon to assist a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act
in the arrest of a person suspected of having committed any offence mentioned in subsection (2) may assist if he or she knows that the person calling on him or her for assistance is a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act, and does not know that there are no reasonable grounds for the suspicion.
Cyclist to identify self
218. (1) A police officer who finds any person contravening this Act or any municipal by-law regulating traffic while in charge of a bicycle may require that person to stop
and to provide identification of himself or herself. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 218 (1).
(2) Every person who is required to stop, by a police officer acting under subsection (1), shall stop and identify himself or herself to the police officer.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statut ... 0f32_e.htm
1. In this Act,
“government agency” means,
(a) a ministry of the Government of Ontario,
except that a psychiatric facility, residential facility or college of applied arts and technology that is administered by a ministry is not included unless it is designated as a public service agency by the regulations,
“service” means any service or procedure that is provided to the public by a government agency
or institution of the Legislature and includes all communications for the purpose.
Provision of services in French
2. The Government of Ontario shall ensure that services are provided in French in accordance with this Act.