Summons Issued to Owner of vehicle, NOT Driver....wtf???

User avatar
LAWguy
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:09 pm

Summons Issued to Owner of vehicle, NOT Driver....wtf???

by: LAWguy on
Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:38 am

Ok so heres the deal on this one:

A family member calls me today concerned and crying :cry:. Well apperently her husband was driving his truck which had an expired sticker. Pretty simple right? NO!

Officer further discovers that he was also driving the vehicle without insurance. I know, pretty bad right. Heres the funny twist to this.

Seeing how the vehicle is under his wifes name, the officer issues a Summons to Defendant for his WIFE! Who dosnt even drive and has no drivers license!
I understand no insurance is a no no, but why charge the owner of the vehicle, not the driver?

Has anyone heard of this :?:

Been in law school for a good year now, never heard of this one..
"It's only a matter of time before you get pulled over for something"




User avatar
LAWguy
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:09 pm

by: LAWguy on
Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:12 am

OPS Copper wrote:pretty basic CAIA. no insurance goes to the owner. Owner permit Operation of a motor vehicle with no insurance

I have done this numerous times.

OPS
Really? So does "no insurance" always goto the owner of the vehicle? What happens to them, fine I'm assuming? In this case Owner does not drive , no license. It is kinda weird tho. I mean, how can they issue a summons to defendant, without personally handing it to the defendant? theres got to be something there?
"It's only a matter of time before you get pulled over for something"


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:49 am

Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act
2. (1) Subject to the regulations, no owner or lessee of a motor vehicle shall,
(a) operate the motor vehicle; or
(b) cause or permit the motor vehicle to be operated,
on a highway unless the motor vehicle is insured under a contract of automobile insurance

Offence
(3) Every owner or lessee of a motor vehicle who,
(a) contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and is liable on a first conviction to a fine of not less than $5,000
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


User avatar
LAWguy
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:09 pm

by: LAWguy on
Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:47 am

Thank you for the replys everyone.

This is interesting to me now for another reason. If the vehicle is under a corporation, and you are obviously NOT a corporation, technically then they cannot hold the individual liable, they must charge the corporation with the offence.

any thoughts?
"It's only a matter of time before you get pulled over for something"


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:52 am

Whoever is on the ownership as the registered owner, whether it be a person and/or company will be the one who gets charged with the offence
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca




Stanton
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 2111
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:49 pm
Location: Ontario

by: Stanton on
Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:54 pm

There are a few sections in the HTA where the owner can be charged instead of the driver. The obvious ones are photo radar and red light cameras, where the owner is always charged. Don't have my HTA handy, but the other sections I can think of off the top of my head are permitting the use of an incorrect plate, val tag, etc.

There used to be quite a few sections but many have been removed over the years.


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “Courts and Procedure”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest