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

Sec. 172 Upheld
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:43 pm 
Offline
Sr. Member

Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:06 pm
Posts: 354
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ontar ... story.html

ORONTO — The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld the province’s controversial stunt racing law that includes potential jail sentences for speeding more than 50 kilometres per hour over the limit.

The ruling issued Thursday overturns a lower court decision and states there are now effectively two types of speeding offences in Ontario — speeding and “aggravated speeding.”

The Court of Appeal also ordered a new trial for Jane Raham, a 62-year-old grandmother who was acquitted of stunt racing after she was stopped driving 131 kilometres per hour in an 80 kilometre per hour zone, while passing a truck.

The stunt racing law, enacted in 2007, was billed by the Ontario government as part of a crackdown on street racing.

When it was passed into law though, the offence included fines and potential jail terms of up to six months in custody simply for driving more than 50 kilometres over the limit.

The courts have previously interpreted speeding as an “absolute liability” offence, which means someone charged is not allowed to present a defence. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that it is unconstitutional for an offence to include the possibility of jail, when there is no right to a defence.

The Court of Appeal ruling distinguished between the amount that someone is accused of speeding.

If a driver is charged under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act with speeding of up to 50 kilometres over the limit, it will still be an “absolute liability” offence, since the penalties are fines and not potential jail terms.

But if the charge is stunt driving, then a driver is entitled to present a “due diligence” defence, that reasonable steps were taken to speed by less than 50 kilometres.

“I see nothing illogical in treating one as a strict liability offence and the other as an absolute liability offence,” wrote Justice David Doherty, with Justices Robert Blair and Kathryn Feldman concurring.

Doherty provided a number of examples where someone speeding might be acquitted of a stunt racing charge, such as pulling out into a passing lane for a few seconds or if it was shown the speedometer was malfunctioning.

In ordering a new trial for Raham, the court noted that she will now be permitted at her re-trial to “advance a due diligence defence” to explain why she was speeding.



Looks like we are good to charge. I predict that the numbers charged again will shoot up. I know many I work with were shy to lay the charge while it was under appeal and opted to part 3 50 over instead of the stunt driving.

OPS




OPS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:28 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:24 am
Posts: 107
It would appear all those that put their 172 trials over until the decision need to come up with a new strategy :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:29 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
Posts: 2881
Location: Toronto
Having read the newspaper article... if JPs/Justices in lower courts actually follow the Ontario Court of Appeal's guidance, this should work. (Key word: IF.) Actually it makes it easier to defend a stunt driving charge than regular speeding.

Quote:
Doherty provided a number of examples where someone speeding might be acquitted of a stunt racing charge, such as pulling out into a passing lane for a few seconds or if it was shown the speedometer was malfunctioning.


Many JPs had simply said "well you admit you're speeding even 1 km/h over the limit so there goes your due diligence defence." What Doherty said to them was "WRONG," and said the due diligence is not to speeding, but to speeding 50 km/h or more over the limit. So if the defendant can show that they took reasonable steps to avoid going 50 km/h over the limit, even if they were speeding, they would be found not guilty of stunt driving. Speeding yes, but stunt driving no.

I'm not a legal expert, but I get the impression that Doherty actually thought this one through carefully and probably got it right.

Now raise the 400-Series speed limits already... Oh and on top of that, there's another issue with the up-front penalties (read: property seizure intended as de-facto punishment) for a strict liability offence... Roadside licence suspension would probably stand up as constitutional...

_________________
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca


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 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Stunt Driving Law Upheld - Lower Court Decision Quashed

FyreStorm

0

1884

Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:50 am

FyreStorm View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Ontario Traffic Act sec.27(1)(a) and sec.27(1)(d)

loveu177

6

7381

Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:44 am

seant 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

3238

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. More s. 172 Comedy Gold

Lawman

2

633

Tue Jul 07, 2009 2:21 pm

Charlene 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

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. Second judge... 172 Unconstitutional

[ Go to pageGo to page: 1, 2 ]

Bookm

15

3354

Mon Aug 11, 2014 4:43 pm

BelSlySTi 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: No registered users 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.