This may be old hat for a lot of you, but I think it bears repeating:

613 sect. 10 (b) states "a passenger is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (3) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if the passenger occupies a position without a seat belt assembly and there is no other available seating position with a seat belt assembly;"

and Section 106 of the Highway Traffic Act states:

"106. (1) No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle in which a seat belt assembly required under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) at the time that the vehicle was manufactured or imported into Canada has been removed, rendered partly or wholly inoperative, modified so as to reduce its effectiveness or is not operating properly through lack of maintenance."

Now, if a person were travelling on a county road in Ontario as a passenger in a car; which before entering they were unaware of: a middle seat belt that has been rendered inoperative by an animal chewing it at an unknown time and sit in this seat, as all other positions have been filled. Are they responsible for the inability to buckle up? Also, once receiving a ticket for "fail to properly wear seatbelt" is there any grounds for disputing the ticket?

What do you think?

I will be monitoring this thread as well in order to give timely replies. The above post is open to discussion, as am I.

The laws have to cover all vehicles. From "buggies to now".

If your vehicle came with a seat belt it should be used.

A animal ate my seat belt defense may be a bit weak.

In some older cars there only lap belts in the center.

Usually this kind of ticket comes out some kind of foolishness from a passenger.

Cheers

Viper1

You're cherry picking sentences here out of context.

REGULATION 613, 10, deals with motor vehicle manufactured without seat belt assemblies.

10. Where a motor vehicle manufactured without seat belt assemblies for each seating position and not modified so that there is a seat belt assembly for each seating position is driven on a highway,

(a) the driver is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (2) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if there is no seat belt assembly at the drivers seating position;

(b) a passenger is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (3) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if the passenger occupies a position without a seat belt assembly and there is no other available seating position with a seat belt assembly; and

(c) the driver is exempt from clause 106 (4) (a) of the Act with respect to any passenger described in clause (b). O. Reg. 522/06, s. 10.

A dog chewing your seat belt doesn't mean your vehicle didn't come equipped with an assembly, it just means you let your dog chew through it.

106. (1) No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle in which a seat belt assembly required under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) at the time that the vehicle was manufactured or imported into Canada has been removed, rendered partly or wholly inoperative, modified so as to reduce its effectiveness or is not operating properly through lack of maintenance. 2006, c. 25, s. 1.

For example, classic/vintage cars that were manufactured from the original car manufacturer without seat belt assemblies are not required to install them in order to meet today's standards. They were perfectly legal at the time and they've been grandfathered into law. Your car came with a seat belt, you just haven't maintained it.

viper1 wrote:

The laws have to cover all vehicles. From "buggies to now".

If your vehicle came with a seat belt it should be used.

A animal ate my seat belt defense may be a bit weak.

In some older cars there only lap belts in the center.

Usually this kind of ticket comes out some kind of foolishness from a passenger.

Cheers

Viper1

I think there may have been some foolishness from the passenger, and the passenger did admit to the officer issuing the ticket, that, "The belt doesn't work!" and upon demonstrating, connected the belt to the other, now unoccupied, receptacle. Making it blatantly obvious to the responding officer that seatbelts within the vehicle were functioning.

bend wrote:

You're cherry picking sentences here out of context.

REGULATION 613, 10, deals with motor vehicle manufactured without seat belt assemblies.

10. Where a motor vehicle manufactured without seat belt assemblies for each seating position and not modified so that there is a seat belt assembly for each seating position is driven on a highway,

(a) the driver is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (2) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if there is no seat belt assembly at the drivers seating position;

(b) a passenger is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (3) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if the passenger occupies a position without a seat belt assembly and there is no other available seating position with a seat belt assembly; and

(c) the driver is exempt from clause 106 (4) (a) of the Act with respect to any passenger described in clause (b). O. Reg. 522/06, s. 10.

A dog chewing your seat belt doesn't mean your vehicle didn't come equipped with an assembly, it just means you let your dog chew through it.

106. (1) No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle in which a seat belt assembly required under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) at the time that the vehicle was manufactured or imported into Canada has been removed, rendered partly or wholly inoperative, modified so as to reduce its effectiveness or is not operating properly through lack of maintenance. 2006, c. 25, s. 1.

For example, classic/vintage cars that were manufactured from the original car manufacturer without seat belt assemblies are not required to install them in order to meet today's standards. They were perfectly legal at the time and they've been grandfathered into law. Your car came with a seat belt, you just haven't maintained it.

Am I right to gather that you're implying there is no grounds for dispute?

I did think while reading through these sections that really; the car shouldn't have been driven if the harness was malfunctioning and to push the issue may result in much more hassle for the owner of the vehicle. Do you think that's a correct assumption?

Both of you: Thank-you for you time and input on these matters.