Oh where to begin

HTA

33. (1) Every driver of a motor vehicle or street car shall carry his or her licence with him or her at all times while he or she is in charge of a motor vehicle or street car and shall surrender the licence for reasonable inspection upon the demand of a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 33 (1).

Plus failing to identify is an arrestable offense in Ontario

C.A.I.A

Operator to carry insurance card

3. (1) An operator of a motor vehicle on a highway shall have in the motor vehicle at all times,

(a) an insurance card for the motor vehicle; or

(b) an insurance card evidencing that the operator is insured under a contract of automobile insurance,

and the operator shall surrender the insurance card for reasonable inspection upon the demand of a police officer. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.25, s. 3 (1).

Excluded driver to carry insurance card

HTA

Permit to be carried

(5) Subject to subsection (6), every driver of a motor vehicle on a highway shall carry,

(a) the permit for it or a true copy thereof; and

(b) where the motor vehicle is drawing a trailer, the permit for the trailer or a true copy thereof,

and shall surrender the permits or copies for inspection upon the demand of a police officer. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 7 (5).

HTA

48. (1) A police officer, readily identifiable as such, may require the driver of a motor vehicle to stop for the purpose of determining whether or not there is evidence to justify making a demand under section 254 of the Criminal Code (Canada). 2007, c. 13, s.

So yeah we ca stop a vehicle for no other reason as to demand to see the DL, permit, and proof of insurance.

And we do it all the time and it is legal

ops

CoolChick wrote:Actually this is not strictly true...

If the officer is acting as a PEACE officer.. he needs to have seen you breaching the peace. Therefore he needs PROBABLE CAUSE,

If he is acting as a POLIC (Y) E ENFORCEMENT officer he is looking to contract with you to issue a ticket for revenue services. This will be the purpose of the stop... in other words if you have not been observed breaching the HTA it is a case of entrapment.

Furthermore, in order to obtain a contract with you he needs you to provide a name that the government has certified as belonging to you ... in other words your corporate (yes you read that right) name and your date of birth as stated on the government document that confirms you as a corporation. I dont know about you...but I wasn't able to determine what day or month or year it was when i was born, so I would imagine they wouldn't want hearsay !

Also the definition of DRIVER is an issue here. A DRIVER is someone who operates in commerce and therefore takes passengers for payment ie./ cabs, buses , trucks carrying produce for sale etc etc. A man who is operating an automobile for private purposes is actually simply 'travelling' and therefore is not operating in commerce. This is a fact as per the Bill of Rights and Freedoms. A traveller does not require a license to operate an automobile as he/she is not operating in commerce. Look into the Mennonites.. they do not require licences or photo ID... ask yourself why ???? Simply... they know their rights....

Probable cause does not exist in Canada-it's reasonable grounds and it has nothing to do with Provincial HTA offences. It applies to charges within the Criminal Code.

...................and the rest of what you said is nonsense.

In response to CoolChick:

1. Most of what you are writing about is from the United States. Probable cause, Bill of Rights, are American concepts. We are in a country called "Canada." We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and cruzmisl already covered reasonable grounds.

2. Mennonites/Amish do not drive motor vehicles. They use horses, for riding and to pull buggies, etc. A horse is a living, breathing animal - not a motor vehicle. You do not need a licence to ride a horse, but the rider is still subject to the HTA when on the road, same as bicycling.

3. You do need a licence to operate a motor vehicle. Any argument about "commerce" or not is BS and you will find, very quickly, that any attempt to introduce that in court will result in everyone in the room ROFL, followed by a quick conviction.