If there was no real consequence for failure to pay, why would anyone pay a small fine? At what point would we cut it off? Also, The Stig points out that there was a warning on the offence notice. I'd be willing to be that in 80% of the cases, a written warning would still not compel the driver to pay the fine, so why waste the postage and paper? It may have spurred you to pay, but you'd be the exception rather than the rule.



They can, and often do, report the late payment to credit rating agencies like Equifax. So there is damage done even if the services are not cut.

The only thing you can really do at this point is pay the fine and the reinstatement fee to get your licence back. There is no way to appeal this particular suspension. It is an administrative issue and MTO will not remove it from your record.

_________________
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca

Agreed; there should be consequences for unpaid fines. However, the consequences for not paying a traffic violation are inordinately severe, especially considering the potential repurcusions. Indeed, to suggest someone who doesn't pay a fine on time should face the same repurcusions as someone who's license was suspended because he/she's a bad driver is absurd.

While the suspension itself doesn't affect insurance (administrative suspension), if you're caught, you face some pretty absurd repurcusions--whether you knew it or not. And those repurcusions WILL result in a hefty increase of your insurance.

Recently, there was an article on the CBC (I think) indicating there as some 330,000+ people in Ontario who have suspended licenses. That's 3.75% of all licensed drivers. Scary statistic...until you consider the unpaid fines thing (and shame on CBC for not breaking it down...pure sensationalism...). How many of those drivers are suspended, and don't know?

The 'warning' given on the back of the ticket (and on the conviction notification sent in the mail) indicate only that it 'MAY' result in suspension. Not 'WILL'. If the MTO has automated their system so the suspensions letters are indeed sent out on the day the fine is due (which appears to be the case), this wording needs to be changed to ensure there is no question as to what the repurcusions will be.

Even then...30 days? THIRTY DAYS???? Really? It takes six MONTHS before Hydro can be shut off. And there are limitations to what they can do (it can only be limited, not shut off, in winter months). I'm guessing Gas is the same.

As it is, licenses expire every X years (five, I think?). Why not, instead of making criminals of everyone who doesn't pay a fine, prevent the person from being able to renew their license? No different than if I don't pay a parking ticket and try to renew my plates. At that point, you can be absolutely, unquestionably sure the person knows their license is expired, and the consequences are completely fair. But at least it would eliminate the 'I didn't know' factor. Even then, thet consequences of driving with an expired license are different than a suspended license, I think (though I can't find it in the HTA...must be filed under something other than 'expired').

.
..
It might be a little too late in replying but this is an interesting issue.

Respectfully, I tend to agree with Epad and xjonathan . There are many reasons why someone didn't or couldn't pay a fine. Some of them are cover under the re-opening procedure. Others are not and yet they may have a logical and reasonable explanation.

The issue of notice is also important. The issue of gravity of the offence and the fine amount outstanding is also relevant.

It just seems to me that daddy government is just trigger-happy when it comes to grabbing money.

I don't think Epad explained how was he convicted in the first place. Was it at trial? Fail to respond? Did he receive a Notice of Fine and Due Date?

I think we are missing the real point here. The real issue is not whether he should have paid his fine on time, but whether or not a license suspension for not paying on time is appropriate.

He acknowledges that he should have paid the fine. He has not given a reason or excuse for not paying the fine. His point is -clearly- that the suspending his license is extreme and not justified. And I agree.

For instance, when a certain number of demerit points are attached to your record, the Ministry will send you letter either advising you that your license may be suspended or they ask you to attend to a meeting where you have to explain why your license should not be suspended.

After accumulating a high number of points, your license is suspended, initially for 30 days and longer with subsequent accumulation of demerit points.

I just don't see how a driver is given so much slack on driving offences -which may result in a dangerous driver on the road- and not to someone that, for whatever reason, did not pay a fine on time, particularly in this case. It's disproportionate and makes no sense. It confirms to me that traffic tickets are nothing but a cash caw for the State.

Simon Borys wrote:

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Really? I know it is so stated in the HTA

Quote:

Driving a privilege
31. The purpose of this Part is to protect the public by ensuring that,

(a) the privilege of driving on a highway is granted to, and retained by, only those persons who demonstrate that they are likely to drive safely; and

(b) full driving privileges are granted to novice and probationary drivers only after they acquire experience and develop or improve safe driving skills in controlled conditions. 1993, c. 40, s. 1.

But... Is it a privilege to get what you deserve by right?

If I pay my license fees, I'm covered by driving insurance and keep an impeccable driving record; can the government remove or suspend my driving license? Of course NOT. It's a rhetorical question. I have the right to hold a driving license not a privilege.

A privilege is extended to someone deserving it or not. A privilege is a special and exceptional.

Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin privilegium law for or against a private person, from privus private + leg-, lex law
Date: 12th century

: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor ; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privilege

Cheers.
..
.