Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

Ontario Highway Traffic Act

Discuss the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.


Post Your Traffic Ticket, and Get Help!


The Ontario Traffic Ticket Forum!


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Check It Out
No unread posts New Set Fines Starting Sept 1st, 2015! Read and Learn Here.
  Print view

More s. 172 Comedy Gold
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:39 pm 
Offline
Jr. Member

Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:30 pm
Posts: 68
If your vehicle is stolen and then found and impounded, s. 172 (9) and (15) require you as the owner to pay towing and storage fees before your stolen property will be returned to you.

Should you refuse refuse to pay, the impound facility who is now in possession of your stolen property is entitled to sell your stolen property.

Have you ever heard of anything so stupid?

First of all, it’s stolen property.

Second, the police know it belongs to you and must return it to its rightful owner at no cost.

Third, the impound facility is now in possession of stolen property under Criminal Code s. 354(1). Possession is defined in Criminal Code s. 4(3).

Theft of the vehicle is a Criminal Code offence.

Section 172 (9) states that “Despite the detention or impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section, a police officer may release the motor vehicle to its owner before it is impounded under subsection (7) or, subject to subsection (15), may direct the operator of the impound facility where the motor vehicle is impounded to release the motor vehicle to its owner before the expiry of the seven days if the officer is satisfied that the motor vehicle was stolen at the time that it was driven on a highway in contravention of subsection (1).”

Section 172 (15) states “The person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under subsection (7) is not required to release the motor vehicle until the removal and impound costs for the vehicle have been paid.”

Section 172 (14) states “The costs incurred by the person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under this section are a lien on the motor vehicle that may be enforced under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.”

Section 172 (16) states “The owner of a motor vehicle that is impounded under this section may bring an action against the driver of the motor vehicle at the time the vehicle was detained under clause (5) (b) to recover any costs or other losses incurred by the owner in connection with the impoundment.”

However, the person who stole the vehicle from the owner might not be caught by police; he may’ve run off on foot and got away after being chased by police for violating any provision within s. 172.

The owner of the car would not know who the driver was so the owner can not sue the driver. This would leave the owner of the vehicle to pay the impound facility to get his stolen property back.

Courts have already ruled that vicarious liability has no role in quasi-criminal statutes and is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The law cannot allow the impound facility who is in possession of stolen property to remain in possession of the stolen property or to benefit from being in possession of the stolen property by selling it when the rightful owner is known.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:58 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:49 pm
Posts: 1490
Location: somewhere in traffic
So, enforcing the law can be illegal......I like it............. :D

_________________
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com


Top
 Profile  
 
Re: More s. 172 Comedy Gold
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 2:21 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:54 pm
Posts: 2
THANK YOU!

Lawman wrote:
If your vehicle is stolen and then found and impounded, s. 172 (9) and (15) require you as the owner to pay towing and storage fees before your stolen property will be returned to you.

Should you refuse refuse to pay, the impound facility who is now in possession of your stolen property is entitled to sell your stolen property.

Have you ever heard of anything so stupid?

First of all, it’s stolen property.

Second, the police know it belongs to you and must return it to its rightful owner at no cost.

Third, the impound facility is now in possession of stolen property under Criminal Code s. 354(1). Possession is defined in Criminal Code s. 4(3).

Theft of the vehicle is a Criminal Code offence.

Section 172 (9) states that “Despite the detention or impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section, a police officer may release the motor vehicle to its owner before it is impounded under subsection (7) or, subject to subsection (15), may direct the operator of the impound facility where the motor vehicle is impounded to release the motor vehicle to its owner before the expiry of the seven days if the officer is satisfied that the motor vehicle was stolen at the time that it was driven on a highway in contravention of subsection (1).”

Section 172 (15) states “The person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under subsection (7) is not required to release the motor vehicle until the removal and impound costs for the vehicle have been paid.”

Section 172 (14) states “The costs incurred by the person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under this section are a lien on the motor vehicle that may be enforced under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.”

Section 172 (16) states “The owner of a motor vehicle that is impounded under this section may bring an action against the driver of the motor vehicle at the time the vehicle was detained under clause (5) (b) to recover any costs or other losses incurred by the owner in connection with the impoundment.”

However, the person who stole the vehicle from the owner might not be caught by police; he may’ve run off on foot and got away after being chased by police for violating any provision within s. 172.

The owner of the car would not know who the driver was so the owner can not sue the driver. This would leave the owner of the vehicle to pay the impound facility to get his stolen property back.

Courts have already ruled that vicarious liability has no role in quasi-criminal statutes and is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The law cannot allow the impound facility who is in possession of stolen property to remain in possession of the stolen property or to benefit from being in possession of the stolen property by selling it when the rightful owner is known.
:D


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Related topics
 Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Even More s. 172 Comedy Gold

Greatest Canadian

1

541

Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:53 pm

Greatest Canadian View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Section 48 Comedy Gold

Lawman

4

645

Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:08 pm

Lawman View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Celebrating Canada's Gold Medal today, Got a seatbelt ticket

Soccerfan

2

547

Tue Feb 25, 2014 12:10 pm

ynotp View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. SECTION 172? HELP

50overTokeMyWifeAndKids

7

2377

Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm

Radar Identified View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Hta (172) 1

yama

2

928

Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:43 pm

yama View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. O.P.P criuser impounded under 172

[ Go to pageGo to page: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

BelSlySTi

56

3237

Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:03 pm

tdrive2 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. And another reason to strike down S.172

[ Go to pageGo to page: 1, 2 ]

Reflections

21

978

Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:40 pm

PetitionGuy View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Despite s. 172, people are still racing

Radar Identified

3

524

Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:31 pm

Bookm View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Another Victim of HTA 172

BelSlySTi

0

615

Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:55 pm

BelSlySTi View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Second judge... 172 Unconstitutional

[ Go to pageGo to page: 1, 2 ]

Bookm

15

3353

Mon Aug 11, 2014 4:43 pm

BelSlySTi View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Sec. 172 Upheld

OPS Copper

2

1711

Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:29 am

Radar Identified View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. S.128 and S.172(1) and s.130 and s.8(1) - is possible all to

driver

6

2014

Tue May 17, 2011 12:01 am

driver View the latest post

 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Web Development & Search Engine Optimization
Home | Court Listings | Ontario Traffic Ticket

Copyright 2007 - 2017 © Microtekblue Inc. Web Development & Search Engine Optimization Service. We Support phpBB All Rights Reserved.