A number of people have posted on this forum recently stating that the officer told them they "had to" give them a ticket. I've replied to enough of these posts that I thought it would be worth it to write a blog post on this topic. You can read it below if you're interested.

http://simonborys.wordpress.com/2011/02 ... -a-ticket/

Hopefully people who have this question in the future will now be able to search the forum to find the answer to their question. The short answer, for those who don't want to read the blog post, is that the officer didn't have to issue you the ticket, though as I've said in my other posts on this forum, they probably had a good reason why they did.

What's your opinion on the Stunt Driving Legislation? Because the section uses "shall" instead of "may", many officers argue they have no discretion. If you have reasonable and probable grounds to believe a stunt driving offence has been committed, you shall proceed with the charge, suspension and impoundment. It's almost like domestic violence situations, where if you have R&PG to believe a criminal offence has occurred, you shall lay a charge.

When I actually read section 172, I don't see anything that says you shall charge, but the impoundment/suspension section read like they're mandatory. However if you don't proceed with charges, I can't see how you'd proceed with a suspension/impoundment.

And not saying I disagree with you, but it is an argument that I hear come up from time to time.

Racing, stunts, etc., prohibited

172. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Offence

(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her drivers licence may be suspended,

(a) on a first conviction under this section, for not more than two years; or

(b) on a subsequent conviction under this section, for not more than 10 years. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Police to require surrender of licence, detention of vehicle

(5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall,

(a) request that the person surrender his or her drivers licence; and

(b) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (b). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

The section seems awkwardly worded around whether you can seize the vehicle and licence without laying a charge. Although it seems counter intuitive to do this without an accompanying charge, that appears to be exactly what the section allows you to do and I'm not aware of anything else in statute or common law which would prevent you from doing just that. But nowhere in the section does it say that the discretion to charge has been removed, so I interpret it, strictly, to mean that you can choose whether to charge but you must seize the vehicle and suspend the licence.

Of course, in practice, I think most officers are going to seize only when charging.