Fail to obey stop sign sec. 136(1)(a)

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

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:37 pm

lawmen, thanks for the normal reply, I'll try to find the Savage case for you to peruse...
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


lawmen
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:57 pm
Location: Planet X

by: lawmen on
Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:46 pm

Peter58 wrote:The ticket does not even indicate whether he had received any demerit points or not. Just states the offence, $85 fine, and $110 total payable fine. Nothing is mentioned about points and the cop didn't say anything to him either.
It doesn’t appear to me that demerit points must be posted on the certificate unless the certificate has a spot on it to indicate demerit points are involved. Bear in mind that not all charges involved points.

The certificate must set out the charge under ss. 13 and/or 25 of the POA.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statut ... _e.htm#BK6

In my view, demerit points are part of the penalty. Thus, if a set fine is involved, one could argue that demerit points must be posted on the certificate so that the accused knows exactly what he is agreeing to accept as a penalty if he pleads guilty out of court. If the points are not included, then the ticket is not regular on its face.

The certificate of offence is found on form 1 on the following link. It’s so blurry I can’t read it all clearly, but it doesn’t appear to have a spot for points.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/e ... 0950_e.htm

This is a major issue that can be argued.

If you’re pleading guilty based upon a set fine and only find out later points are included, that were not indicated on the penalty portion of the ticket certificate, you now could face more penalties by increased insurance rates, or, depending on the amount points you already have, you could face more sanctions from the MTO under s. 56 of the HTA.

And if you’re a novice driver, those sanctions can even be higher than a full driver receives.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statut ... e.htm#BK97

Section 12(2)(iii) of the POA articulates the consequences of conviction, which includes any purposes of giving effect to any action or result provided for under the Highway Traffic Act.

Therefore, in my view, points MUST be indicated on the certificate otherwise one is being misled as to what they are agreeing to be convicted of.

Interestingly, s. 12 only applies when you are charged by offence notice. If you are issued a summons, s. 12 does not apply even if the offence relates to a HTA offence. Which is totally bizarre.

Other consequences of conviction

12(2) Where a person is convicted of an offence in a proceeding initiated by an offence notice,

(a) a provision in or under any other Act that provides for an action or result following upon a conviction of an offence does not apply to the conviction, except,

...

(iii) for the purposes of giving effect to any action or result provided for under the Highway Traffic Act
Without Justice there's JUST US


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

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:34 am

Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


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

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:27 am

trick question....I found a an old township name listed/designated as a bilingual area. This township is now almalgamated into a larger municipality with a different name, therefore the olde township no longer legally exists. Does the bilingual sign thing still apply?
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


User avatar
Bookm
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Stratford, Ontario

by: Bookm on
Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:40 am

I'm pretty sure I hold the record for MOST tickets on this forum (over 20) and I have never seen "points" listed on any on of them. If it turns out they were supposed to be there, I can't wait to tell everyone that, technically, I have a completely clean record!! :D


lawmen
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:57 pm
Location: Planet X

by: lawmen on
Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:14 am

hwybear wrote:trick question....I found a an old township name listed/designated as a bilingual area. This township is now almalgamated into a larger municipality with a different name, therefore the olde township no longer legally exists. Does the bilingual sign thing still apply?
Municipalities must pass by-laws in order for the bilingual thing to apply on roads under their jurisdiction. However, many HTA offences involve points. When points are involved it is a provincial matter, and therefore, regardless of whether or not the municipality passed a bilingual by-law the bilingual requirement is still in effect because it applies to Provincial matters.

This is an issue TC discovered and it’s totally brilliant. I've taken it to the next level though, alleging that the text officers add to the ticket certificate, notice of offence or summons must also be bilingual, and further, that the cop must speak to the stopped driver in both languages.

My arguments are still untested in court mind you, but it seems commonsense to me that if the certificates are printed in both languages then the text the cop adds to it must also be in both languages or the certificate is not regular on its face.

I also live in a community that had 7 or 8 other communities’ amalgamated with my city. All the by-laws of the old communities stayed in effect for them but did not apply to my city to which they were amalgamated with. However, in contrast, all the my city’s by-law applied to all of the old communities.

I assume this might apply to the place you're referring too, but I don't know for certain.

And by the way, amalgamation for all concerned here, has been a disaster.
Without Justice there's JUST US


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

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:29 am

lawmen wrote: When points are involved it is a provincial matter, and therefore, regardless of whether or not the municipality passed a bilingual by-law the bilingual requirement is still in effect because it applies to Provincial matters..
Stand-by...have a good one (challenge) for ya...see if I can find it here...if not I have the info at work..
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


lawmen
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:57 pm
Location: Planet X

by: lawmen on
Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:47 am

hwybear wrote:
lawmen wrote: Do you have a link to the Quebec vs SAVAGE case? I can't find it.
Found it.....

http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccq/doc/20 ... cq304.html

cheers,
Bear
This guy is relying on the Charter, as I suspected. That's the difference.

This guy is also funny!

"The accused submits that the “e” in English should be uppercase and the writing is not large enough."
Without Justice there's JUST US


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

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:11 pm

lawmen wrote: This guy is relying on the Charter, as I suspected. That's the difference.
Ok, so the arguement is still the same is it not, the requirements on a PON. Where the SCC has already made a ruling on this type of issue.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


lawmen
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:57 pm
Location: Planet X

by: lawmen on
Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:07 pm

The guy argued that the Charter required it to be in both languages. It actually is. All he had to do was call the phone number and they would send him a copy in English.

In Ontario, we are not using the Charter to make the argument. We are using the FLSA. The FLSA is in compliance with the Charter or it would not exist. It couldn't exist if it wasn't in compliance because it would be deemed of no force and effect as bein inconsistent with s. 52 of the Constituion Act 1982.

The reason the certificates, notices and summons are preprinted in both languages is because the FLSA requires it. Not because of the Charter. If the Charter required it, then Quebec would be required to do it too. They aren't. They only send you a English copy if you request it. The FLSA only applies in Ontario.

When you fill in the text as a cop, you too must fill it in using both languages or it's not in compliance with the FLSA.

If it's not in compliance with the FLSA, then it's not reguar on it's face for purpose of the POA.

Justices know this, but have be ignoring it forever. (Suck-la-Blue)

Every ticket that people did not challenge had to be quashed, but they weren't. People have been ripped off for millions of dollars.

Can you imagine how much it will cost to make every street name sign in Ontario read both French and English?

Out of the 13 million Ontario citizens, less than 1 million are even French.

That's why the justices have been ignoring it.

Every ticket will be tossed in Ontario because lawmen's onto them. (Ca-lynn)

The FLSA requires ALL communications to be in both languages. Therefore, when you stop a driver and speak to him, you must speak to him in both languages unless he consents to allow you to only speak in one.

So every cop must speak both languages. Can you imagine how much it's going to cost to turn English cops into bilingual cops?

Back to school you go, Bear. (Moan-S-T)

Merci
Last edited by lawmen on Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Without Justice there's JUST US


User avatar
Bookm
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Stratford, Ontario

by: Bookm on
Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:31 pm

OK Law, you'd have me completely sold if you purposely go out and get a ticket. Then test your theory and report back :)


User avatar
ticketcombat
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:59 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

by: ticketcombat on
Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:10 pm

lawmen wrote:This is an issue TC discovered and it’s totally brilliant. I've taken it to the next level though, alleging that the text officers add to the ticket certificate, notice of offence or summons must also be bilingual, and further, that the cop must speak to the stopped driver in both languages.
When I first came across the argument I thought "NO WAY!" It amounts to a "get out of jail card" for traffic offences. And yet, it stood up on appeal. Lawmen is pushing the envelope and I totally support it. I've spent the last six months racking up parking tickets in the hopes that I could push the decision for parking as well. (Un)fortunately the City of Toronto doesn't prosecute parking tickets. It just takes that one precedent and a whole province can be turned upside down: [url=ttp://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1985/1985rcs1-721/1985rcs1-721.html]Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] (Supreme Court of Canada)[/url].
Fight Your Ticket!


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “Failing to obey signs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest