My partner got a ticket for parking in disabled parking, and we don't want to pay! So far all I can come up with is this:

Halton Hills (where he got the ticket) Parking bylaw (1984-0001) Section III item 12 (c) says:

(c) A designated disabled person parking space shall be distinctly indicated in

accordance with the Regulations of the Highway Traffic Act.

But I can't find anything in the HTA about how they should be indicated. In this case, the spot wasn't marked with anything painted on the ground within the space, so I think we can fight and get off.

Any help?

It's covered under the HTA:

Offence, disabled person parking permit

27. (1) No person shall,

(d) use a disabled person parking permit on land owned and occupied by the Crown otherwise than in accordance with the regulations;

And the details including sign requirements are covered under Regulation 581.

coreythestar wrote:

My partner got a ticket for parking in disabled parking, and we don't want to pay!

From a every day person side of things....that is just "beeping" rude / ignorant / inconsiderate etc parking in a handicap spot.

next worse is parking in a fire route!

Would hate for these people to walk an extra 30 ft to the door

Both my parents had disabled permits. When I would drive them to the mall, all the disabled spots would be taken. I would drive up to the entrance, let them out and then park. When it was time to leave, I would go get the car and then pick them up while they waited by the entrance. If I took too long, they would start to get worried and panic. They also couldn't stand for very long so this made an outing more difficult for them. I've seen some of the people using the permits and they look in better shape than me! So I'm very sensitive to this issue as well.

We have sections for speeding, failing to remain at the scene of an accident, careless driving, and for not slowing down and changing lanes for police officers on the side of the road. I think these offences are just as "beeping rude".

Toronto is a designated area under the French Language Services Act which means all the disabled spots must be bilingually signed. They are not. This technicality means the by-law is unenforceable and the $450 ticket is not valid. If someone from Toronto got a ticket and came to this site, what would you do?

We can face the moral dilemma and decide who is worthy of our help or we can offer assistance without judgment. I think both options are equally tough to do. And based on the comments I've read on this site, we seem to do both at the same time!

It seems the only real issue is, did corythestar's partner learn his lesson?

coreythestar wrote:

My partner got a ticket for parking in disabled parking, and we don't want to pay!

"ticketcombat" speaks of the moral dilemma involved in deciding whether or not to help in an accused's defense. Certainly, there are some charges (those being laid frivolously under Bill 172, to cite the obvious) that every responsible driver should help defend against, in any way that he or she can. But there are other offenses (actually driving more than 50 k over the posted limit, say) for which the offender, so far as I'm concerned, is on his own. Deliberately parking in a Handicapped spot if you are not handicapped is in the latter category. I'd say corythestar's partner should man up (or woman up), admit it was wrong, take the punishment, and stop doing it.

hwybear wrote:

coreythestar wrote:

My partner got a ticket for parking in disabled parking, and we don't want to pay!

From a every day person side of things....that is just "beeping" rude / ignorant / inconsiderate etc parking in a handicap spot.

next worse is parking in a fire route!

Would hate for these people to walk an extra 30 ft to the door

If someone missed what I meant...............means that a capable person that parks in a handicap spot or fire route is "beeping rude"

TC, I've seen you mention the French Language Services Act a few times now, spped limit sign, parking. I wasn't aware of the points you make reqarding this and it's an extremely interesting argument.

Are you saying that if a city has a passed a by-law providing that the administration of the municipality shall be conducted in both English and French that all highway signs must be in both French and English?

Do you have any case law in relation to this matter?

lawmen wrote:

TC, I've seen you mention the French Language Services Act a few times now...Do you have any case law in relation to this matter?

lawmen: the relevant case is R. v. Myers [2004] O.J. No. 4763. My site has the argument and analysis, see Step 5 -->bilingual defence.

No municipality has proclaimed s14 of the FLSA as far as I know. Instead, this case establishes that the signs are a provincial jurisdiction and therefore not subject to the municipal requirement. Despite explicit wording in s52 of Reg 615, the court took a stunningly different opinion. Enjoy!