Are cops subject to the HTA too?

After the officer established and charged me with driving while suspended, he asked me to drive the vehicule a couple meters further down the road to a safer position? Also he gave me and my toddler a ride home, but he didnt want me to bring in my car seat! Aren't those major infractions?

For info on why i was driving while suspended, you can refer to this topic: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic4778.html

Making you move to a safer spot is quite easily to articulate. So if he made you call a cab and you have to pay for that, would you think one would complain about him / her not having a heart ...

My 2 cents

i dont think compassion has anything to do with (3) The driver of a motor vehicle on a highway is required to ensure that a toddler passenger is secured as set out in subsection (6). O. Reg. 195/05, s. 1.

And I have seen people get charged with "driving" while suspended even when they were just sitting in a car with the keys in the ignition.

Police are subject to the Highway Traffic Act, but there are many exemptions for them.

In regards to seat belts, they are covered under both the Highway Traffic Act and the Regulation 613. It can be found here: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/r ... g-613.html

The regulation exempts police or their passengers from being belted.

As for directing you to move your vehicle to another location, police do have the authority to direct traffic. While you may be under suspension, the safety justification is something Courts readily accept and understand.

found it thanks, although the exemption for subsection 8 is as follows:

8.1 (1) The following are exempt from complying with subsections 8 (2), (3) and (4):

1. The driver of a taxicab, bus or public vehicle, while transporting a passenger for hire.

2. The driver of an ambulance.

3. Revoked: O. Reg. 236/09, s. 3 (1).

Im not sure wether or not we can consider a police cruiser as a vehicle for hire though.

Julio wrote:

Im not sure wether or not we can consider a police cruiser as a vehicle for hire though.

They're not. It's section 2 and 3 of the regulation.

2. A police officer or peace officer who in the lawful performance of his or her duty is transporting a person in his or her custody is exempt from subsections 106 (2), (3) and (4) of the Act.

3. A person who is in the custody of a police officer or peace officer is exempt from subsection 106 (3) of the Act.

So he committed an offence by transporting my child without a car seat which I offered to?

Julio wrote:

So he committed an offence by transporting my child without a car seat which I offered to?

No, the regulation that Stanton posted says that a police officer and any passengers he is transporting are exempt from the seat belt provisions of the Highway Traffic Act, including the section requiring child seats.

Love it. Cop does not tow the vehicle, which they could have done at your expense. Cop give you a ride home which he did not have to do and yet your complaining.

So you save possibly hundreds of dollars and you are complaining.

And people wonder why cops have stopped cutting the public slack or become black and white when it comes to enforcement.

Go ahead and be sure to bring your complaint up in court and see how much sympathy the prosecutor will then cut you. I am guessing that they will figure since the cop cut you a huge break on the side of the road that they will fight to impose the maximum penalties. That is what they tend to do here when people complain about something that should have cost them cash. Ie: fighting tickets when they also got two or three roadside warnings.

OPS

Im just confused. so what is subsections 106 (2), (3) and (4)? i thought that didnt include subsection 8?

Thanks for the heads up copper. But im not complaining about the ride, im merely inquiring about his refusal to put the car seat. And im not complaining in court, im but trying to understand my rights, privileges and duty on a forum on the internet. this is all new to me after 15 years of being licenced and driving. im not looking for compassion nor am i emotional about it.

OPS Copper wrote:

Cop does not tow the vehicle, which they could have done at your expense. (...)

And here's why I feel the need to inquire about my rights because you cant trust the guy wearing black shoes and white socks to tell you on the side of the road. You cannot get towed for suspension for unpaid fines.

You most certainly can tow the vehicle. I have countless times. The majority of the time I offer the driver to get someone there to drive it.

double post

paul1913 wrote:

You most certainly can tow the vehicle. I have countless times. The majority of the time I offer the driver to get someone there to drive it.

Not unless they were suspended by court order or by criminal code convictions. If you did, they could successfully appeal and you might have some explanation to do since your office would have to reimburse any towing and storage costs.

source: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety ... lity.shtml

Effective December 1, 2010, drivers caught driving with a drivers licence that is already under a specific Highway Traffic Act (HTA) suspension(s) - including default of family support, but not including suspensions for defaulted fines or medical conditions* will have the vehicle they are driving impounded for seven days.

its even on the OPP website... and im under the assumption that 2 OPP officers(?) out of 2 would have me believe otherwise.

http://www.opp.ca/ecms/index.php?id=540

Changes to Vehicle Impoundment Program Authority

UPDATE - The OPP have posted a Request For Proposals to the http://www.merx.com

On July 1, 2011 the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) will be transferring vehicle impoundment authority for 45, 90 and 180-day Criminal Code licence suspensions to Ontario police services and will no longer provide the existing system of tow companies currently being used.

As a lead-up to this date, the OPP will be acquiring through the procurement process the services from impoundment facility operators (IFC) to provide towing services under this new authority. This service will become part of other legislated seizures and tows we currently conduct under legislated authority.

These seizures include:

The seven-day impoundment program for street racing;

The seven-day impoundment for drivers suspended under the HTA (excluding suspensions for defaulted fines and medical reasons);

The seven-day impoundment for drivers with a BAC over 80 mg. or fail/refuse to comply with the demand of a police officer (e.g. for a breath sample);

The seven-day impoundment for drivers caught driving without a required ignition interlock device;

The towing of vehicles as it relates to 3, 7 and 30-day suspensions for "warn range"

We will be tendering these services out through a Request for Proposal (RFP) posting on MERX in May, the exact date of which will be confirmed in the near future. For the purposes of the RFP, we have divided the province into areas and IFC's will be instructed to identify which area(s) they want to bid on. Effective July 1, 2011 IFC's that were awarded contracts through the RFP process will be utilized for vehicle impoundments in their respective designated area.

A Vendor Information Session will be held by teleconference five days after the RFP has been posted to MERX. This teleconference will be led by Ministry of Community Services and Correctional Services and MTO representatives and will provide further information about the new Vehicle Impoundment Authority.

Details about the RFP process and the Information Session will be posted shortly, therefore you are reminded to check back with this website regularly for updates.

If you read that it says you do not impound the vehicle for 7 days as part of the hta VIP. No where does it state that the officer can not tow the vehicle to have it removed fom the side of the road.

if you read the MTO website, as in the source link i provided, you will find that if the owner of the vehicle were to appeal, towing costs would be at the OPP's expense. So yes he can tow it, but his department would have to pay for it and im sure some good explaining to do.

So he's not doing me a favor by not towing, he's saving costs for the OPP.

I never said impound. Towed for being an abandoned vehicle on the roadway.

I call the tow company and tell them this vehicle needs to be privately towed. You are responsible and can have it towed anywhere you want as along as it is off the road.

We do it all the time.

Your link is for vehicles seized. We are not seizing the vehicle. it is just being removed from the roadway where it is a safety hazard or in our case, in a the city , it is now obstructing traffic.

OPS

OPS, thats probably because he agreed to it because he had no one to get it for him. Or because they never appealed. It's a gamble where odds are usually in your favor (because they dont know their rights)

from the MTO:

Can I appeal the impoundment?

Yes, a vehicle owner/plate holder can appeal an impoundment on the following grounds:

Vehicle was stolen at the time of the impoundment;

Driver was not under a Criminal Code suspension;

Vehicle owner/plate holder exercised all reasonable efforts (i.e. due diligence) to ensure

that the driver had a valid driver's licence; or

Loss of the vehicle would result in exceptional hardship.

There is a $100 fee to file an appeal. In the event of a successful appeal, any towing and storage costs will be refunded. The filing fee to the License Appeal Tribunal is non-refundable.

Ok i see what you're saying, towing for safety reasons and not impounding, but not unless i can get someone with a valid license to move it first.

Julio wrote:

Im just confused. so what is subsections 106 (2), (3) and (4)? i thought that didnt include subsection 8?

Hi Julio,

I've put little one line explanations next to each subsection, I've also included a link to the HTA in case you want to read the whole section.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statut ... .htm#BK172

Section 106.

Subsection 2 discusses the use of the seat belt assembly by the driver of a vehicle

Subsection 3 discusses the use of the seat belt assembly by a passenger who is over 16 years old

Subsection 4-A discusses the requirement for the driver to ensure that passengers under 16 years old use the seat belt assembly

Subsection 4-B Discusses the need to use a child car seat

Subsection 8 is a list of things the Lt. Governor in council (aka Cabinet) may make regulations about without having to introduce a new bill in the Legislative Assembly

thanks daggx, i really appreciate it. Im now starting to understand all this.

Julio wrote:

paul1913 wrote:

You most certainly can tow the vehicle. I have countless times. The majority of the time I offer the driver to get someone there to drive it.

Not unless they were suspended by court order or by criminal code convictions. If you did, they could successfully appeal and you might have some explanation to do since your office would have to reimburse any towing and storage costs.

source: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety ... lity.shtml

Effective December 1, 2010, drivers caught driving with a drivers licence that is already under a specific Highway Traffic Act (HTA) suspension(s) - including default of family support, but not including suspensions for defaulted fines or medical conditions* will have the vehicle they are driving impounded for seven days.

Not under that section... Try s217... Driving under suspension is an arrestable offense.

So yes it can't be seized under the 7 day HTA VIP but there other options. That also comes down to if you pass the attitude test and previous history as well (ie: habitual suspended driver)

Detaining vehicle when arrest is made

(4) A police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act, making an arrest without warrant, may detain the motor vehicle with which the offence was committed until the final disposition of any prosecution under this Act or under the Criminal Code (Canada), but the motor vehicle may be released on security for its production being given to the satisfaction of a justice of the peace or judge. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 217 (4).

Julio wrote:

Im just confused. so what is subsections 106 (2), (3) and (4)? i thought that didnt include subsection 8?

It doesnt, but subsection 4 is the one that requires drivers to ensure all persons under 16 years of age are properly belted. Subsection 8 simply deals with the fact that whats considered a proper restraint will vary with age, weight, height, etc. So if youre exempt from subsection 4, subsection 8 is no longer relevant.

Julio wrote:

Not unless they were suspended by court order or by criminal code convictions. If you did, they could successfully appeal and you might have some explanation to do since your office would have to reimburse any towing and storage costs.

source: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety ... lity.shtml

Youre confusing towing with impoundment. The Highway Traffic Act grants police many authorities to tow a vehicle. Some common reasons off the top of my head are no licenced driver, unsafe vehicle, improper plates and no insurance. An impoundment is different since the police can then hold onto the vehicle after its towed for a period of time prescribed by law. So while theres no mandated impoundment for driving under suspension with unpaid fines, the vehicle can certainly be towed off the roadway.

Id also point out that police could also request the vehicle be impounded under section 217(4), which grants police the authority to detain a vehicle whenever an arrest is made. As driving under suspension is an arrestable offence, if the officer were to arrest you they could also detain your vehicle pending your charges being dealt with. I wouldnt say its a common occurrence, but it still does grant police the authority to hold onto your vehicle. To get it back you need to request a hearing and show cause why it should be returned.

Edit: Sorry, responded without noticing this thread was on page 2. Looks like a bunch of people already shared this info.

Thanks for the clarification, but isnt the arrestation not possible for a first offense?

Driving while drivers licence suspended

53. (1) Every person who drives a motor vehicle or street car on a highway while his or her drivers licence is suspended under an Act of the Legislature or a regulation made thereunder is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable,

(a) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000; and

(b) for each subsequent offence, to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $5,000,

or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 53 (1); 1997, c. 12, s. 7 (1

That refers to what can happen if youre convicted at trial. You can still be arrested at the time of the offence and either released with a Court date, or in extreme circumstances held for a bail hearing. Section 217 lists most of the arrestable offences under the HTA.

I have used that arrest authority several times and impounded the vehicle until the peron dealt with their matters in court. I have even brought people in for bail court for driving under suspension.

S.217 lists the arrestable offenses under the highway traffic act, and driving under suspension is one of them. It doesn't matter if its the first or 5th time, it is still an arrestable offense.

Thanks again for the clarification, along with the references.