situation: was moving from my apt and rented a U-Haul cargo van which only has 2 seats in the front, and none in the back. i was driving, a passenger was occupying the second seat, and a third passenger was sitting between the two seats on the ground. i was pulled over for speeding and the officer saw the third passenger. i was barely speeding and received only a $40 fine. however, the third passenger (who is 22 years old, has his full G license), received a ticket for $240 (just horrible... he really cannot afford that).

i heard that as long as all of the seatbelts are used, you are allowed to carry extra passengers even if they dont have a seat or seatbelt. i think my passenger was wrongly charged but i dont know how to find out.

Thank you.

Use of seat belt assembly by passenger

HTA 106

(3) Every person who is at least 16 years old and is a passenger in a motor vehicle on a highway shall,

(a) occupy a seating position for which a seat belt assembly has been provided; and

(b) wear the complete seat belt assembly

thank you but your reply was ambiguous. researching further, i found the following regulation, O/Reg 613:

10. Where a motor vehicle manufactured without seat belt assemblies for each seating position and not modified so that there is a seat belt assembly for each seating position is driven on a highway,

(a) the driver is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (2) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if there is no seat belt assembly at the drivers seating position;

(b) a passenger is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (3) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if the passenger occupies a position without a seat belt assembly and there is no other available seating position with a seat belt assembly; and

depending on how to interpret (b), he might be exempt. he was "occupying a position without a seat belt assembly" and there was no available seating position with a seat belt assembly. i notice also that it says "occupying a position... no available SEATING position." in other words, the first "position" is not qualified by the adjective "seating" and so it looks like the first "position" wouldn't have to be a factory-installed seat or anything. could be any position at all.

does anyone know if this is a valid interpretation? has anyone seen case law on this point?

further, what about the fact that he literally cannot afford the ticket. is he supposed to take a loan to do so? thats just ridiculous and unfair. is there no way to argue that the size of the penalty causes undue hardship?

Sitting on the floor between two seats isn't a seating position, so the regulation doesn't apply.

If your friend can't afford the fine, then he needs to go to Court. He can either plead guilty with an explanation and request a reduced fine from the JP, or attempt to work out a plea deal with the Crown for a reduced fine. He could also ask to pay in installments, where as long as he continues to pay a certain amount each month, his licence will remain valid.

django65 wrote:

10. Where a motor vehicle manufactured without seat belt assemblies for each seating position

that refers to old/classic cars....where there is a seating position, however most have only lap belts and some dont have a lap belt