Canlii Reference's

User avatar
Reflections
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1490
Joined:
Location: somewhere in traffic

Moderator

Canlii Reference's

Unread post by Reflections on

As I am trying to make an arguement and having trouble finding the relevent documentation, I have decided to paste the links to Canlii here, for future reference.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/20 ... ca206.html <<<R. v. Raham, 2010 ONCA 206, S.172 OHTA, Absolute vs. Strict Liability
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com


watcher
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 17
Joined:

Unread post by watcher on

The problem I see with Raham is it derailed the serious HTA 172 constitutionality discussion to a tussle on esoteric differences (even in legal terms) between types of offenses.

A law (HTA 172) which says penalties (administrative penalties are still penalties) can be levied with no due process or tangible evidence, and that there is no possible court defense, appeal or reversal to these penalties/charges should be unconstitutional on it's face.

Silly me, I still believe in "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".

The drunk driving laws HTA 172 is modeled after sidestep this inconvenient court path to penalties by making a constitutionally valid case for VERY severe imminent danger to the community, close-coupled to gathering/providing near-incontrovertible evidence. A far cry from the officers "I observed" evidence that backs up most HTA172 charges.

If the police hadn't over-used HTA172 to target the general population (garbage trucks and grandmothers safely passing, please!), no one would care. Actual street racers are fair game in anyone's book.

But Lord Elgin's maxim applies. Absolutely.


Post Reply

Return to “Courts and Procedure”