The Charter is a rewrite of the Bill (of rights) and upon rewriting it changed a few things. But yes I agree that guy didnt deserve that treatment.Fact is many rights are already stripped but people don't recognise it. They have become too complacent and have been conned into believing that it is all in their best interest.

siriusone wrote:

The Charter is a rewrite of the Bill (of rights) and upon rewriting it changed a few things. But yes I agree that guy didnt deserve that treatment.Fact is many rights are already stripped but people don't recognise it. They have become too complacent and have been conned into believing that it is all in their best interest.

The confussing thing is the wording. If an officer "asks" to look in your car, you can say no. And to the layman, I am not excluded, the knowledge of what the average citizen is entitled to is a fuzzy gray area...I think that law courses should be manditory in high school and definitely post secondary.

Reflections wrote:

siriusone wrote:

The Charter is a rewrite of the Bill (of rights) and upon rewriting it changed a few things. But yes I agree that guy didnt deserve that treatment.Fact is many rights are already stripped but people don't recognise it. They have become too complacent and have been conned into believing that it is all in their best interest.

The confussing thing is the wording. If an officer "asks" to look in your car, you can say no. And to the layman, I am not excluded, the knowledge of what the average citizen is entitled to is a fuzzy gray area...I think that law courses should be manditory in high school and definitely post secondary.

The confusing thing in my opinion is that the average 'citizen' is entitled to remain private. Yet, they seem to believe they have no choice but to be controlled and submit to another.

I think there should definitely be courses on the true laws in schools. They will then learn that in ALL of the Supreme courts of Canada the governing law is Common Law whereas the magistrates courts ie. traffic courts operate under admiralty law or commercial law.

I think it would be wise also for police officers to learn the difference between the two and why traffic courts operate under commercial law and not Common Law.

The fuzzy grey area that you mention comes from people not understanding the difference between the two types of law and how each needs to be applied in the court system. This accounts for the confusion about the Charter/Bill of Rights and our rights as men and women.

Really?

That's a tired old argument that been tried in a many a court with the defendant leaving a few hundred dollars poorer...please save all this Common Law talk for another board, as much as you think it applies, our courts don't recognize and the intent of this board was to discuss traffic issues not obscure legal pretexts from a bygone era.

Maybe we could start a folder fro you to go and fill your boots with talk of contracts and conspiracy...

Our courts have evolved as have our laws...I watched a guy try and spout that stuff one time in court, his second No Insurance charge, the Justice laughed his head off in the hallway later, after fining the guy $10K nonetheless.

Yes, I second that request for a cease and desist posting about that Maritime Law nonsense.

Also, I witnessed a woman get her second No Insurance charge and despite the fact that she WAS poor (it was evident) the justice imposed a $5k fine, and if it took years to pay it off, that was fine with him. He gave leniency to her regarding payment plans, but said that since she was already given a break of $2,500 the first time 3 years prior, the second he WAS doubling it, to half the second set fine, the same way the first justice ordered a fine of half of the first set fine.

It was either that, or a 30 day jail stint.

Yeah the fine structure is supposed to be $5k, $10k, $15k etc...I'm sure those a major hardships that will hopefully get the message across...

Yes, it will, but I have to be honest, I think it's a racket. I think it is so unjust when we are forced by law to deal with these insurance companies who, in all honesty, rip us off. Try fighting them or appealing a decision regarding injuries.

At least, and if the government is going to force you to embark on private contracts or else charge you fines, they should have much more regulation on these scams. It's nothing but a license to print money and it is not Just -at all. IMO, it's no different than extortion (okay, that's harsh, but you get my point). BC does so, and while it is not cheaper per se for insurance premiums ALL of the time, it is more economical on average. You can't be refused insurance. You aren't going to pay crazy amounts. You won't be dinged in legalized discrimination. Okay, I realize statistics and actuarists say a certain sub-group are responsible for more accidents, and I do agree (to a point), but please tell me what my status as single person had to do with my risk of carelessness, especially when my insurance company made money off of me because of my lack of claims as compared to what my risk assessment was? Anywhere else, that would be called discrimination and the Human Rights Tribunal and Commission would be involved.

It does need to change. We need insurance because people do need insurance in order to compensate victims in accidents, but this is a poor system as it is. Don't misunderstand me; we NEED insurance. But as it stands now, Joe Public driver is forced to deal with companies who get approval for increases every 4 months as of late, post profits in the hundreds of millions, making money off of us because we are legislated to deal with them. That is a racket. Something is NOT right with that picture. It should be non-profit at the very least.

Actually, the biggest reason why we have high insurance rates is the Accident Benefits portion. In Ontario (especially the GTA) there's a thriving industry that milks the AB system for what it's worth and then some. They have been driving up the costs in addition to some insane lawsuits. As for the high penalties for uninsured drivers...

I'm aware of one who got into a hit and run while driving a vehicle that he never transferred in his name, drove with stolen plates and sure as hell didn't insure. I hope that guy gets the statutory maximum.

Yes, we do have a thriving AB milking business, which may or may not be what I was victim to yesterday, since it couldn't have been timed better. But, that said, the increases in premiums continue as to PROFITS for the company. If this is to be a legislatively mandated system, forcing citizens to partake in the raping of their bank accounts, WHY are these companies and their shareholders becoming RICH when it could be a provincially run non-profit system like in BC where the BC citizens are the shareholders and any positive balance is put back into our pockets through provincially run programs and services, roadways, etc? I find it wrong that fatcats are making profits because the government has their paychecks and dividends snug and securely protected because they legally force people who need to drive to do business with them.

Yes, I'm advocating for a socialized insurance program. I know some won't agree.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on implementing a non-profit system here in Ontario. However, remember that the rates are lower elsewhere because the legal climates are less permissive of abuse, which keeps the claims down, which in turn keeps the rates down. That's why if we ever implemented a government-run system without dealing with the abuse first, we might be in for a good dose of sticker shock. Especially those of us riding supersport bikes

I agree. We are almost as litigious as the U.S. here in Ontario, but we too have limits to what we are awarded, whereas in the U.S., only common law precedent is the limit and that can be easily broken.

I would like to see the system set up whereby only negligence or wilful acts or omission be treated with punitive damages, but otherwise, a system like B.C. I would not want the government to implement a system whereby the negligence or wilful acts or omission are covered. And of course, you behave badly, the MTO won't give you your license and we've got better control over our systems, our money, and the profits, if any, come back to the taxpayer's purse, not some stuffed shirt living on the Mississauga Roads, Rosedale Valleys and Cluny Drives of the GTA.

Common Law is NOT of a bygone era. It is what all Supreme Court cases are to this very day. Like I said, everyone needs to get an education and stop trying to put falsehoods into play.

The judges themselves will tell you under what 'Law' they are operating. They will also tell you that traffic court is a court of administration (look up m'administratiom' in the Law dictionaries). If you are going to give advice on a forum, you should make sure it is accurate.

FyreStorm wrote:

Really?

That's a tired old argument that been tried in a many a court with the defendant leaving a few hundred dollars poorer...please save all this Common Law talk for another board, as much as you think it applies, our courts don't recognize and the intent of this board was to discuss traffic issues not obscure legal pretexts from a bygone era.

Maybe we could start a folder fro you to go and fill your boots with talk of contracts and conspiracy...

Our courts have evolved as have our laws...I watched a guy try and spout that stuff one time in court, his second No Insurance charge, the Justice laughed his head off in the hallway later, after fining the guy $10K nonetheless.

Really !

I could tell you of many success stories,

Since you claimed you could "tell of many success stories," I challenge you to deliver the goods. Case names, with results, from Canada only.

I can agree with most of the original post. But I do have to draw the line at ...

5. Don't tint your windows. They come from the factory with a slight tint, that's it. If police can't see in, must mean you are hiding something.

That's patently absurd. In some unusual circumstance, may mean you have something to hide but it might more easily mean absolutely nothing of the kind. The blanket statement that you must have something to hide is downright offensive.

Of course, I am talking about tint that is in compliance with Ontario's law, which does require that the driver (or maybe occupant) be visible. But the tone of the post seems to imply that any tint is an issue and I must say that that is objectionable.

I'll give you one reason: the three hundred odd dollars. What would the other eleven reasons be?

On a different note, if you're so down on tinted windows, what are your thoughts on smoked lights?