what are my chances against the MOE?

Moderators: Reflections, admin, hwybear, Radar Identified, Decatur, bend

shudastaydhom
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined:

what are my chances against the MOE?

Unread post by shudastaydhom on

Hey all,

Have a court date coming up next week against the Ministy of the Environment & was wondering if anyone has any advice or had any dealings with them before.
They seem pretty strict (& power hungry) & I wanted to see if anyone has fought this charge before & won? This is actually my second run in with them, (didn't know better the first time & pleaded guilty)
I was charged under the Environmental protection Act sect 7 (3) Reg 361/98 Operate a Motor vehicle that contravenes emissions standards. This happened back in March & I had a trial sheduled In August by it was adjourned due to the prosecutor not providing disclosure when I requested it.
I have been following & adapting info from ticketcombat the best I can & also filed a Form 4f notice of constitutional question (although I'm not sure how well that's going to fly with the justice)
Last week Friday, I recieved the disclosure & it was actually quite well laid out & complete. (however, how much time should the prosecutor allow for me to review before a trial? It seems quite close to the court date to be recieving it.)

I'm not sure how much I should let out online, but I plan to fight the charges with the 4f under the grounds that I had been singled out purely based on the fact I drive a older car, & this violates section 15 (1) of my charter rights.

If that doesn't work, My aim is toward the fact that the officer who inspected my vehicle, was not the one who wrote the ticket. The one who wrote it, never checked the car over.

Do these seem like strong enough arguments? Do I have anything in my favor against these guys?

As a car enthusiast, they really get on my nerves, many of the older cars they fine are currently running cleaner now than when new, reguardless of what emissions component are present or not as they have been modified to be much more efficient machines. They don't take into account the modern technolodgy that has been used, all they are interested in seeing is if such & such part came on the car, it's still on the car.

Any & all comments are appreciated.


User avatar
Simon Borys
VIP
VIP
Posts: 1065
Joined:
Contact:

Unread post by Simon Borys on

Your changes, like everyone else's, depends on the merits of your own case. They are no greater or less because you are dealing with the MOE.

I'm curious how you plan on arguing that you've been singled out because you drive an older car. Do you have any independent evidence of this, or it is just your opinion? This might be a difficult line of argument to pursue.

With regards to the officer who inspected your vehicle not being the one who issued the ticket, that's irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that he show up in court to give evidence to the offence.
http://www.boryslaw.ca
NOTHING I SAY ON HERE IS LEGAL ADVICE.


shudastaydhom
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined:

Unread post by shudastaydhom on

Thank you for replying.

with reguards to being singled out, I was about half way through a long line of traffic waiting to turn left at a busy intersection when I was pulled over. I was the only pre-2000ish model vehicle in the line at the time. If I get chosen out of the line to be pulled, shouldn't everyone else in that line get pulled reguardless of the year of there car? Under section 15 (1) of the charter

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

In general terms, the purpose of s. 15(1) is to prevent the violation of essential human dignity and freedom through the imposition of disadvantage, stereotyping, or political or social prejudice, and to promote a society in which all persons enjoy equal recognition at law as human beings or as members of Canadian society, equally capable and equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration: Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 675 (S.C.C.), 1999 CanLII 675 (S.C.C.), 1999 CanLII 675 (S.C.C.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497.

The analysis under s. 15(1) proceeds in three stages, with close regard to context. At the first stage the claimant must show that the law, program or activity imposes differential treatment between the claimant and others with whom the claimant may fairly claim equality. The second stage requires the claimant to demonstrate that this differentiation is based on one or more of the enumerated or analogous grounds. The third stage requires the claimant to establish that the differentiation amounts to a form of discrimination that has the effect of demeaning the claimant's human dignity. The "dignity" aspect of the test is designed to weed out trivial or other complaints that do not engage the purpose of the equality provision: Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), supra; Lovelace v. Ontario, 2000 SCC 37 (CanLII), 2000 SCC 37 (CanLII), 2000 SCC 37 (CanLII), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 950, 2000 SCC 37.

A person asking for equal treatment necessarily does so by reference to other people with whom he or she can legitimately invite comparison. Claims of discrimination under s. 15(1) can only be evaluated by comparison with the condition of others in the social and political setting in which the question arises. A s. 15(1) claim will likely fail unless it can be demonstrated that the comparison, thus invited, is to a "comparator group" with whom the claimant shares the characteristics relevant to qualification for the benefit or burden in question apart from the personal characteristic that is said to be the ground of the wrongful discrimination: Hodge v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), 2004 SCC 65 (CanLII), 2004 SCC 65 (CanLII), 2004 SCC 65 (CanLII), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 357, 2004 SCC 65.

This taken from CanLII.

With reguards to the officer not being the one whoi inspected the car, but wrote the ticket, if he didn't physically see what caused my car to be in violation, but simply listed what the other officer told him, wont his testamony be based purely off hear-say?


User avatar
Simon Borys
VIP
VIP
Posts: 1065
Joined:
Contact:

Unread post by Simon Borys on

The officer who inspected the vehicle is the one who has to testify in order to avoid it being hearsay.

In my opinion I don't think you're situation meets the grounds for being discriminated against. The police are permitted to conduct random checks, which they could claim they were doing in your case. They are also permitted to conduct targeted checks when they are conducting a certain type of enforcement, which they could also claim in your case.
http://www.boryslaw.ca
NOTHING I SAY ON HERE IS LEGAL ADVICE.


shudastaydhom
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined:

Unread post by shudastaydhom on

Thanks again for replying.

I appreciate the imput on the discrimination fact.

I don't beleive the prosecutor intends to call the officer who inspected the vehicle, only the one who issued the ticket. I'll put a greater effort on questioning & my defence geared toward that point.

Thanks for the help. :)






Post Reply

Return to “General Talk”