Fight Your Tickets

Update:

Definition of “Jaywalking” :

It has a number of definitions, but it essentially describes a pedestrian who ignores the rules of the road, especially while crossing the road. Jaywalking would be classified as a pedestrian offence.

Pedestrians may have the right-of-way, but they do not have the right-of-weight.  When a motor vehicle comes into contact with a pedestrian, the laws of physics aren’t very forgiving and unfortunately, the reality is, pedestrians die.

In the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) in the month of January, 2010 there were fourteen (14) pedestrian deaths in twelve (12) days, where a motor vehicle came into contact with a pedestrian, who were on the road. This alarming number represents almost half as many pedestrians as died, in similar circumstances, in the entire calender year of 2009.

In response to this horrific death rate, police mounted a campaign, directed at motor vehicles and pedestrians alike.  In many instances, police just stood at one corner of an intersection and waited for “jaywalkers” to cross the intersection without a green light or after the flashing red hand (the “stop” or “don’t cross signal”) appeared.  Upon reaching the other side, jaywalkers were either provided with a verbal warning or were asked for their identification and were then issued a “jaywalking” ticket.

Pedestrians, crossing the street at a pedestrian crossing, need to know that after the light has turned green, they have about 8 seconds to cross the street, before the flashing red hand (the “stop” or “don’t cross signal”) is activated and begins flashing. If a pedestrian, leaves the curb and steps onto the street after the flashing red hand appears (even though the timer is counting down) then they can be ticketed for “jaywalking” and provided with a ticket with a fine of thirty five ($35.00) dollars for disobeying the flashing “don’t walk” signal.

The expectation, upon entering the roadway, is that pedestrians will be able to cross the street, based on an Ontario Provincial standard of being able to cross that road at 1.25 metres per second.

If a pedestrian walks outside or adjacent to a cross-walk (not within the designated lines), this could constitute an offence of “fail to use cross-walk” which would be met with a ticket, with a fine of thirty five ($35.00) dollars.

If a pedestrian decides to avoid using the pedestrian crossing and wants to cross the street midway (in the middle of the block, also referred to as “mid-block”) and it is determined that that pedestrian forced vehicles to stop or slow down (rather than just waiting for a gap in traffic) then the pedestrian could receive a ticket, with an eight five ($85.00) fine, for  “failing to yield to vehicles when crossing a roadway”. See Toronto’s By-law 32-92 and the Ontario Highway Traffic Act below:

All of the fines referred to above do not include the victim fine surcharge , which is a surcharge always added to the specified fine.

Here are some of the SET FINES for jaywalking:
H.T.A = abbreviation for Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act

Pedestrian fail to use cross-walk – subsection 144(22) of the H.T.A – Set Fine = $35.00

Pedestrian disobey flashing green light – subsection 144(24) of the H.T.A – Set Fine = $35.00

Pedestrian disobey red light – subsection 144(25) of the H.T.A – Set Fine = $35.00

Pedestrian disobey amber light – subsection 144(25) of the H.T.A – Set Fine = $35.00

Pedestrian disobey “don’t walk” signal – subsection 144(27) – Set Fine = $35.00

Cyclist — ride in or along crosswalk – subsection 144(29) – Set Fine = $35.00

In addition to these set fines, the pedestrian would be expected to pay the court fee and victim surcharge.

Example: if a pedestrian disobeyed the “don’t walk” signal and crossed the street anyway and received a jaywalking ticket (see subsection 144(27) above) with a fine of $35.00. In addition to the fine, would be the victim fine surcharge of $10.00 and the court fee of $5.00 = total payable would be $50.00 upon conviction or if the pedestrian voluntarily paid their ticket (which the law recognizes as the pedestrian acknowledging that they are guilty and are therefore paying their fine).

Remember that the courts expect a pedestrian, who walks onto a street, with the intention of crossing that street to the other side, to walk across the street as safely and as soon as is practicable. Subsection 144 (28) of the Highway Traffic Act almost sums up what the expectation is, of a pedestrian crossing the street:

Pedestrian Right of Way

(28) Every pedestrian who lawfully enters a roadway in order to cross may continue the crossing as quickly as reasonably possible despite a change in the indication he or she is facing and, for purposes of the crossing, has the right of way over vehicles.

It is surprising how many pedestrians cross the street oblivious to their surroundings while talking to someone beside them, chatting on the phone, text messaging someone or reading.  It shouldn’t come as a total surprise when, after they have come into contact with a vehicle and have sustained injuries, that they (and not the motor vehicle operator) are actually charged by the police.  This happens more times then one would expect.

Upon being ticketed, can a pedestrian fight a “jaywalking” ticket?

Yes.  These tickets can be fought in the courts, in much the same way that a bicycle ticket, parking ticket or speeding ticket are challenged and fought.

If you follow these steps, you can successfully defend yourself – see:

Requesting a Trial

Right to Trial in French

Notice of Trial

Application for Stay of Proceedings

Disclosure

Prior to the Trial

What are the laws surrounding “jaywalking”?

Every municipality can create their own bylaws in Ontario to cover the act of jaywalking and the fines associated with this act. In Toronto, a bylaw that addresses this is:

Metropolitan Toronto bylaw 32-92, Section 10 :

Except where the traffic control signals are in operation or where traffic is being controlled by a police officer, a pedestrian crossing a highway at a place other than a pedestrian crossover shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles and streetcars upon the roadway, but nothing in the section shall relieve the driver of a vehicle or streetcar from the obligation of taking all due care to avoid an accident.

In Ontario, a review of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act has to take place to understand jaywalking laws:

Interpretation, general

Definitions

1. (1) In this Act,

“highway” includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; (“voie publique”)

“intersection” means the area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb lines or, if none, then of the lateral boundary lines of two or more highways that join one another at an angle, whether or not one highway crosses the other; (“intersection”)

“roadway” means the part of the highway that is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic, but does not include the shoulder, and, where a highway includes two or more separate roadways, the term “roadway” refers to any one roadway separately and not to all of the roadways collectively; (“chaussée”)

Traffic control signals and pedestrian control signals

144. (1) In this section,

“intersection” includes any portion of a highway indicated by markings on the surface of the roadway as a crossing place for pedestrians; (“intersection”)

“pedestrian” includes a person in a wheelchair; (“piéton”)

Yielding to pedestrians

(7) When under this section a driver is permitted to proceed, the driver shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within a crosswalk. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (7).

Stopping at flashing red light

(21) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal and facing a flashing circular red indication shall stop his or her vehicle, shall yield the right of way to traffic approaching so closely that to proceed would constitute an immediate hazard and, having so yielded the right of way, may proceed. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (21).

Pedestrian crossing

(22) Where portions of a roadway are marked for pedestrian use, no pedestrian shall cross the roadway except within a portion so marked. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (22).

Pedestrian – green light

(23) Subject to subsections (24) and (27), a pedestrian approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular green indication or a straight-ahead green arrow indication and facing the indication may cross the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (23).

Pedestrian – stopping at flashing green light

(24) No pedestrian approaching a traffic control signal and facing a flashing circular green indication or a solid or a flashing left turn arrow indication in conjunction with a circular green indication shall enter the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (24).

Pedestrian – stopping at red or amber light

(25) No pedestrian approaching a traffic control signal and facing a red or amber indication shall enter the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (25).

Pedestrian control signals – walk

(26) Where pedestrian control signals are installed and show a “walk” indication, every pedestrian facing the indication may cross the roadway in the direction of the indication despite subsections (24) and (25). R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (26).

Pedestrian control signals – don’t walk

(27) No pedestrian approaching pedestrian control signals and facing a solid or flashing “don’t walk” indication shall enter the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (27).

Pedestrian right of way

(28) Every pedestrian who lawfully enters a roadway in order to cross may continue the crossing as quickly as reasonably possible despite a change in the indication he or she is facing and, for purposes of the crossing, has the right of way over vehicles. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (28).

Riding in crosswalks prohibited

(29) No person shall ride a bicycle across a roadway within or along a crosswalk at an intersection or at a location other than an intersection which location is controlled by a traffic control signal system. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (29).

Symbols

(30) The “walk” or “don’t walk” pedestrian control indications referred to in this section may be shown as symbols as prescribed by the regulations.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (30).

PART XI
CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

Liability for loss or damage

192. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle or street car is liable for loss or damage sustained by any person by reason of negligence in the operation of the motor vehicle or street car on a highway. 2005, c. 31, Sched. 10, s. 2.

Onus of disproving negligence

193. (1) When loss or damage is sustained by any person by reason of a motor vehicle on a highway, the onus of proof that the loss or damage did not arise through the negligence or improper conduct of the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle is upon the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle. 2005, c. 31, Sched. 10, s. 3.

Application

(2) This section does not apply in cases of a collision between motor vehicles or to an action brought by a passenger in a motor vehicle in respect of any injuries sustained while a passenger. 2005, c. 31, Sched. 10, s. 3.

Same

(3) This section applies where the loss or damage was sustained on or after the day section 3 of Schedule 10 to the Budget Measures Act, 2005 (No. 2) comes into force. 2005, c. 31, Sched. 10, s. 3.

Same

(4) This section, as it read immediately before the day section 3 of Schedule 10 to the Budget Measures Act, 2005 (No. 2) comes into force, continues to apply where the loss or damage was sustained before that day. 2005, c. 31, Sched. 10, s. 3.

Definitions

(5) In this section,

“motor vehicle” includes street car; (“véhicule automobile”)

“operator” has the same meaning as in subsection 16 (1). (“utilisateur”) 2005, c. 31, Sched. 10, s. 3.

How can a pedestrian legally cross the street without “jaywalking”?

at a pedestrian crossing (on a green light or at a marked crosswalk, respecting the right-of-way rules); or

on a street, mid-way,without impeding or slowing down traffic and always providing motor vehicles the right-of-way

you can cross in the middle of the street as long as your action of crossing does not interfer with the flow of traffic

The City of Toronto provides pedestrians the following safety advice:

• Be predictable. Do not make decisions that place you in the path of oncoming traffic
• Cross at traffic signals, crosswalks and stop signs on busy roads
• Look all ways before crossing. Never cross unless it is safe to do so
• Walk, don’t run, across intersections. Only cross when you have enough time to make it to the other side
• At pedestrian crossovers push the button to activate the flashing yellow light and point to indicate your intention to cross
• Try to make eye contact with drivers before stepping off the curb. Just because you see the car, doesn’t mean the driver sees you
• Wait for vehicles to stop before crossing in front of them. Cars take longer than you think to stop
• Keep aware of traffic until you safely reach the other side

Toronto has Existing Pedestrian Policies, Programs and Actions in place and a Pedestrian Charter.  There are Pedestrian Priority Intersections and Accessible Pedestrian Signals in Toronto.

Is Jaywalking just part of our culture?

Boston – is the capital and largest city of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts – fine for jaywalking = $1.00 USD

January 29, 2010 – Toronto Police – Campaign: Crossing Safely, Enforcement Results.

February 7, 2010 – When can a child cross the road, unsupervised, at the age of nine (9)?

Update: See page and previous post.

The City of Toronto’s Auditor General, Mr. Jeffrey Griffiths, C.A., C.F.E. made a number of recommendations to the City of Toronto’s City Council with respect to Toronto’s 2010 Operating Budget . The City of Toronto faces a shortfall of approximately half a billion dollars in revenue and is attempting to find additional monies by carefully reviewing it operations and untapped sources of revenue.

In his November, 2009, released in a report on January 27, 2010 report Toronto’s Auditor General noted several facts and made many recommendations designed to generate the maximum revenue for the City, at the expense of motorists.

Here are some of his observations and recommendations:

Value of Parking Tickets

The Auditor concluded that the annual value of parking tickets issued in Toronto is about $110 million.

He also noted that the value of parking tickets have increased 75% from 1998 to 2008. In 1998, the City issued 2.6 million parking tags valued at $63 million. Since that time, the number of parking tags issued has increased from 2.6 million to 2.9 million or 12 per cent. The value of parking tags issued in 2008 exceeded $110 million, an increase of 75 per cent from 1998.

Some of the Reasons why Parking Tickets are Cancelled:

In 2008 the City of Toronto issued 2.9 million parking tickets and cancelled 425,000 of those parking tickets, potentially valued at over 18 million dollars in 2008. The City of Toronto staff cancel 15% of parking tickets issued for various reasons.
Various reasons why parking tickets are cancelled:

The City must cancel parking tickets that are issued, but given to the vehicle operator or not placed on the motor vehicle windshield. Due to legislative requirements, the City cannot mail the ticket to the registered vehicle owner’s home. In 2008, the City lost a potential of approximately 5 million dollars (by cancelling 111,000 parking tickets), due to vehicles driving away, before the parking ticket could be placed on their windshield or hand delivered to the operator of the vehicle.In 2007, much like the following year, the City lost a potential $4.53 million dollars (119,000 parking tickets), due to “drive-away” vehicles that couldn’t be ticketed by parking enforcement officers.  In the last decade, the City of Toronto has twice approached the Province of Ontario, to amend the Ontario Highway Traffic Act to allow the City to send parking tickets, that could not be served upon the operator or vehicle, to the registered vehicle owner’s home, but both times the request has been made (in 1999 and 2002), the Province has not amended the legislation.

The Auditor urged the City of Toronto to mail tickets to drive-away motorists, as is the current practice in cities such as Vancouver and Edmonton. The Province of Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General is signalling that they would be open to working with the municipalities and amending the laws to allow parking authorities to mail parking tickets to the registered vehicle owner’s home.

What the Auditor’s report stated “Depending on the success of negotiations with the Province and other third parties, there are opportunities to increase revenues in the administration of parking tags. On a conservative basis assuming that the number of drive-aways could be reduced by 50 per cent, the potential of increased revenues to a level of over $2.5 million is likely attainable.”

The City also cancels parking tags issued to out-of-province vehicles because owner address information is not available. In 2008, the City cancelled 93,000 tags exceeding $4 million for vehicles registered outside of Ontario. On average, 85 per cent of parking tags issued to out-of-province vehicles remain unpaid and are subsequently cancelled. This is a long outstanding issue at the City of Toronto. If reciprocal agreements do not exist with other Provinces and Territories and States, the free exchange of information (relating to the registered owner and his/her residential address) cannot take place and attempts to collect on unpaid parking tickets is futile and unproductive.In 2007, in an effort to collect parking tags issued to out-of-province vehicles, the City initiated a pilot project with several American states including New York, Pennsylvania, Maine and Ohio. The pilot project provided for an exchange of vehicle-owner address information. In 2008, City management determined that the project was not cost effective due to the significant administrative work and cost in collecting the necessary information.

In April 2009, Council approved the discontinuation of the out-of-province parking ticket collection process because the cost of the program exceeded revenues realized. Council also approved that the Province of Ontario be requested to continue negotiation of data transfer and data exchange agreements by the Province of Ontario with other provincial and state governments as this remains an effective and viable option. The report tabled in November 2009 indicates that the City will continue to work with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Big 12 Police Services Boards in Canada in order to secure support for data-exchange agreements with other jurisdictions.

What the Auditor’s report stated “if the City were able to recover 25 per cent of out-of-province tags a further $1 million in revenue would be possible.” While we support these initiatives, the City should also consider reviewing best practices in other organizations including the collection methods used by 407 International Inc., the company that manages the operation of the 407 Highway in connection with out-of-province road toll charges. During our discussions with management of 407 International Inc., we were advised that 407 International Inc. has entered into various agreements with organizations such as the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators in Canada and in the United States with various vehicle licensing authorities to obtain vehicle-owner address information. 407 International Inc. uses this information to mail toll charge fees to out-of-province drivers. We have not been able to determine the success rate of this initiative as this information is not available to the public. 407 International Inc. has an arrangement with the Ministry of Transportation to share registered plate owner information with collection agencies for collecting outstanding road toll charges. The City does not have such an agreement with the Ministry.
In addition, we were further advised that 407 International Inc. uses collection agencies to collect revenue for out-of-province vehicles. The minimum threshold for the collection of revenue is $30, which is in the range of the City’s average parking tag amount.”

Ontario’s privately owned highway, Highway 407, has been subjected to heavy criticism, given its collection methods and practices and overbilling and the fact that it is private but has agreements within the government, normally reserved for other forms of government.

First appearance facilities accept payments, process trial requests and address parking tag disputes.
In 2008, of the 425,000 cancellations, the City’s “discretionary cancellations” at first appearance facilities totalled 12,000 parking tags valued at over $500,000. These cancellations are categorized as “discretionary” because City staff are allowed to exercise a degree of judgement in cancelling parking tags. Examples in which tags are cancelled relate to bylaw exemptions, missing signs, educating first time offenders and medical emergencies.
The Revenue Services Division has developed guidelines to waive fines in this cancellation category. However, current policies and procedures do not adequately specify the documentation requirements to support the cancellation. In some cases, when cancelling parking tags certain staff obtain documentation to support the offender’s claim while others cancel tags without requiring documentation.

The Good News:
Motor Vehicle Operators are beginning to understand that the only way to win their parking tickets is to fight their tickets.
In his report, the Auditor noted that the City of Toronto staff members review pre-court filing documents for accuracy prior to submission to Court Services. The number of trial requests has increased over the past several years. For example, in 2006, 125,000 parking tags resulted in trial requests, while in 2008, requests for trial almost doubled to approximately 248,000. This means that motorists are beginning to exercise their rights and contest the City’s parking tickets and more tickets are being won.  Remember to always http://fightyourtickets.ca

Update:

Provincial and Territorial laws in Canada differ greatly with respect to their laws on hitchhiking. This post only cites Provincial and Territorial laws and not laws passed by the numerous Municipalities across the country. Municipalities have the opportunity to prevent pedestrians from going onto specific highways or hitchhiking within the Municipalitie’s boundaries.

Hitchhiking is prohibited on Canada’s major highways.

Here is each Province’s and Territory’s laws with respect to hitchhiking:

Alberta – Traffic Safety Act

“pedestrian” means a person afoot or a person in a wheelchair;

There are no laws that specifically prohibit pedestrians from hitchhiking.

British Columbia – Motor Vehicle Act

Municipal powers

124 (1) The council of a municipality may, by bylaw not inconsistent with or derogatory to this Part, provide for the following: (n) the regulation or prohibition of pedestrian traffic on highways other than at crosswalks;

Pedestrian walking along highway

section 182

If there is a sidewalk that is reasonably passable on either or both sides of a highway, a pedestrian must not walk on a roadway.

(2) If there is no sidewalk, a pedestrian walking along or on a highway must walk only on the extreme left side of the roadway or the shoulder of the highway, facing traffic approaching from the opposite direction.

(3) A person must not be on a roadway to solicit a ride, employment or business from an occupant of a vehicle.

(4) Except for a person who solicits a ride in an emergency situation, a person who contravenes this section commits an offence.

Schedule 1 highways restrictions: (see Reg.26/58 includes amendments up to B.C. Reg. 236/2009, Nov. 15/09):

19.07 (1)  Except as authorized by a permit issued by the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, and except for crossing a highway at an intersection, use of any highway named in Schedule 1 by the following is prohibited at all times:

(a) vehicles drawn by animals;

(b) livestock, as defined in the Livestock Act;

(c) farm implements and farm machinery, whether self-propelled or towed;

(d) pedestrians, unless attending a disabled vehicle;

(e) vehicles incapable of maintaining a minimum speed of 60 km/h on level road, except construction or maintenance equipment owned or hired by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure while working on or travelling to or from a worksite located on a highway named in Schedule 1.

(2)  Subsection (1) does not apply to pedestrians and to operators of pedal cycles and limited speed motorcycles using footpaths constructed adjacent to the travel portion of the highway or the shoulder on the travel portion of the highway where the minister causes signs to be erected designating the footpath or shoulder for such permitted use.

[en. B.C. Reg. 68/71, s. 5; am. B.C. Regs. 343/77; 171/85, s. 1; 112/86, s. 1; 133/89, s. 2.]
Under this same section (19.07), the specific highways that pedestrians are prohibited from entering, can be found.

Fail to use sidewalk                       section 182(1)    Fine -$109.00
Fail to walk on left facing traffic section 182(2) Fine -$109.00
Hitchhike or solicit on roadway section 182(3) Fine -$109.00

Manitoba: Highway Traffic Act

The Act does not appear to prohibit the act of hitchhiking, however, the Act does contain language which would allow a peace officer to issue a ticket, in the event that hitchhiking is prohibited by a by-law which has been adopted by the various municipalities in Manitoba.

Enforcement of compliance with by-laws by pedestrians

144  Notwithstanding anything in this Part, the council of any municipality may, by by-law, provide

(a) that where a peace officer has reasonable and probable grounds for believing that a pedestrian has committed or is committing a breach of those provisions of a by-law that relate to pedestrian traffic, he may require the pedestrian to stop and there and then to state correctly his name and address, and to prove his identity to the satisfaction of the peace officer; and

(b) that, if a pedestrian refuses or fails to stop and state correctly his name and address or so to prove his identity when so required, the peace officer may arrest him without warrant.

Newfoundland & Labrador: Highway Traffic Act

Pedestrians to use sidewalks

128. (1) Where there is a sidewalk that is reasonably passable on either or both sides of a highway, a pedestrian shall not walk on a roadway.

(2) Where there is no sidewalk, a pedestrian walking along or upon a roadway or the shoulder of a highway shall, where practicable walk only on the left side of the roadway or the shoulder of the highway facing traffic approaching from the opposite direction and no more than 2 persons shall walk abreast on the roadway.

(3) A person shall not be on a roadway for the purpose of soliciting a ride, employment or business from the occupant of a vehicle. 1988 c33 s127

Schedule

Penalties

		Penalty
Section and subsection or paragraph	Offence	A fine of not more than the dollar amounts specified		In default of payment  of fine for no longer or shorter than time specified
		Max.	Min.	Max.	Min.

128(1)	Walking on roadway when sidewalks provided	180	25	6 days	1 day
128(2)	Walking on wrong side of highway	180	25	6 days	1 day
128(3)	Standing on roadway to solicit rides, etc.	180	25	6 days	1 day

New Brunswick: Motor Vehicle Act

174 (3) No person shall be on a roadway for the purpose of soliciting a ride, employment or business from an occupant of a vehicle. 1955, c.13, s.156; 1960, c.53, s.29; 1987, c.38, s.10.

Northwest Territories Motor Vehicles Act

There is nothing directly on point. The only language that appears, is a clause that refers to soliciting employment or business, not soliciting a ride.

Soliciting employment or business.

257. No pedestrian shall be on a roadway for the purpose of soliciting employment or business with an occupant of a vehicle using the roadway.

Nova Scotia: Motor Vehicle Act – Section 128 (1) & (2)

Standing in roadway to hitch-hike or board streetcar

128 (1) It shall be an offence for a person to stand in a roadway for the purpose of soliciting a ride from the driver of a private vehicle.

(2) It shall be an offence for a person about to board a street car to stand upon the roadway either within or without a crosswalk except when a safety zone has been established, until the street car which he is about to board has been brought to a standstill. R.S., c. 293, s. 128.

Category A offences

292 Any person who violates any of the provisions of Section 14, 18, 30, 31, 34, 35 or 58, subsection (3) of Section 71, subsection (2) of Section 78, Section 95, 127, 128, 143, 144, 146, 148, 149, 151, 155 or 156, subsection (1) of Section 158 or Section 159, 160, 162, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170A, 171, 172, 177, 182 or 183 is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to the penalties provided for a category A offence in the Summary Proceedings Act. 2002, c. 10, s. 20; 2005, c. 8, s. 9; 2007, c. 20, s. 8.

Category “A” offence in the Summary Proceedings Act:

Category A -  Offence          Out of Court Settlement

first offence                               $138.96

second offence                           $167.71

third or subsequent offence   $225.21

Nunavut - Motor Vehicles Act, R.S.N.W.T.

There is nothing directly on point. The only language that appears, is a clause that refers to
soliciting employment or business, not soliciting a ride.

Soliciting employment or business.

257. No pedestrian shall be on a roadway for the purpose of soliciting employment or business with an occupant of a vehicle using the roadway.

Ontario: Section 177 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act

As a pedestrian, in Ontario, you cannot enter any of the 400 series highways or the Queen Elizabeth Way (QEW) (see R.R.O. 1990, REGULATION 627 USE OF CONTROLLED-ACCESS HIGHWAYS BY PEDESTRIANS )

Soliciting rides or business from drivers

Soliciting rides prohibited

177. (1) No person, while on the roadway, shall solicit a ride from the driver of a motor vehicle other than a public passenger conveyance. 1999, c. 8, s. 7 (1).

Section 1. (1) “roadway” means the part of the highway that is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic, but does not include the shoulder, and, where a highway includes two or more separate roadways, the term “roadway” refers to any one roadway separately and not to all of the roadways collectively; (“chaussée”)

You are allowed to hitchhike in Ontario, as long as you are not “on the roadway” (as s.177 (1) specifically makes reference to). The 400 series highways (ie.401,403,409, 410 etc.) restricts any pedestrians from entering it.  If, as a pedestrian you attempt to go on the highway to hitch a ride, expect an officer to pull over and remove you, which is their right under section 185 (3) of the H.T.A. See Use of Controlled-access Highways by Pedestrians, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 627

Penalty: See the Ontario Court of Justice – Schedule 43 – Highway Traffic Act

ITEM  512 -  Solicit A Ride  – Section 177 (1)  – Fine $50.00

Prince Edward Island: Section 193 (1),(2) & (3) of the Highway Traffic Act

Walking on roadway when sidewalk provided
(1) Where there is a sidewalk that is reasonably passable on either or both sides of a highway, a pedestrian shall not walk on a roadway.

Walking on wrong side of road
(2) Where there is no sidewalk, a pedestrian walking along or upon a roadway or the shoulder thereof shall when practicable walk only on the left side of the roadway or the shoulder of the highway facing traffic approaching from the opposite direction and no more than two persons shall walk abreast on the roadway.

Standing on roadway to solicit rides, etc.
(3) No person shall be on a roadway for the purpose of soliciting a
ride, employment or business from the occupant of a vehicle. R.S.P.E.I. 1974, Cap. H-6, s.178.

Violation of any section or subsection above -Maximum Fine=$100.00, Minimum Fine=$50.00

Quebec – Highway Safety Code:

Standing on roadway.

448. No pedestrian may stand on the roadway to solicit transportation or to deal with the occupant of a vehicle.  1986, c. 91, s. 448.

449. No pedestrian may solicit transportation where passing is prohibited.

Offence and penalty.

505. Every pedestrian who contravenes any of sections 444 to 453.1 is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine of $15  to $30.     1986, c. 91, s. 449 & 505; 1990, c. 4, s. 212; 1990, c. 83, s. 181.

Saskatchewan -  Highway Traffic Act

There are no laws that specifically prohibit pedestrians from hitchhiking.

Yukon Territory – Motor Vehicle Act

There are no laws that specifically prohibit pedestrians from hitchhiking.

In Tibet - Two Canadian men who were hitchhiking, were stopped by authorities and were fined $ 500.00 Yuan (or $77.00 Canadian dollars) each for hitchhiking without permits.

Update: see previous posts – O.P.P Laying Numerous Cellphone Charges before February 1, 2010,  Cell Phone Ban effective October 26, 2009 on Ontario’s highways, streets & roads. , Restrictions on Cell Phones in Motor Vehicles

Effective Monday, February 1, 2010 Bill 118 will be aggressively enforced in Ontario (by the O.P.P) and Toronto (by the Toronto Police) and expect a ticket with a fine starting at $ 155.00 (which includes the victim fine surcharge, and the court costs ) which is added to the initial fine. Given the climate that currently exists in the GTA (with a large number of pedestrians dying (14 since Jan.6/10) after coming  into contact with motor vehicles) fightyourtickets.ca predicts that a huge number of tickets will be issued in the first week of February, not only for using hand-held devices, but for anything else that can be loosely connected to safety at pedestrian cross-overs, intersections, traffic lights, cross-walks etc.). Driver’s will be charged for simply having a hand-held device in their hands (whether they are being used or not) while sitting behind the wheel, while the vehicle is moving on the road.

The O.P.P have been issuing numerous tickets for motorists using their cellphones during the Ontario governments “education period” or grace period between Oct.26/09 and Jan.31/10 and will issue many more when official enforcement is to begin on February 1, 2010.

Due to a high number of pedestrian deaths (in which motor vehicles were involved) in Toronto (10 in 9 days), Toronto’s Chief of Police, Bill Blair recently said “there is a new legislation for distracted drivers, which is an issue as well. The law against use of hand-held devices while driving will be aggressively enforced starting in February”.

This is Ontario’s newest law (which carries a fine up to $500.00) which prohibits driver’s from texting, typing, emailing, dialing or talking or listening to messages using a hand-held device (includes cellphones, smartphones, iPhones, portable videogames and media players). This includes viewing screens on laptop computers or DVD players: Bill 118, Countering Distracted Driving and Promoting Green Transportation Act, 2009 . See Government website:

The new law only applies to “hand-held devices”

Did you know that drivers who text, type, email, dial or chat using a hand-held device could be fined up to $500 for:

Using hand-held cellphones, smartphones, portable videogames and media players

Viewing screens on laptops or DVD players

Driver’s may use hands-free devices:

Cellphones with an earpiece, headset or Bluetooth device using voice dialing

Global Positioning System (GPS) units mounted on the dashboard

Portable media players (ie-iPod) plugged into vehicle’s sound system

The law does not apply to:

Driver’s in vehicles pulled off the roadway or lawfully parked

9-1-1 calls

Display screens showing information about the vehicle’s status

This law will most affect those who drive for a living or who use their vehicles as a mobile office.  If you need to talk while your driving a motor vehicle, make sure that you use an earpiece, headset or Bluetooth device using voice dialing that is compatible with your cellphone or other electronic device that you are using; if you do use one of these, as opposed to picking up your phone to speak or dial, you will save yourself the unnecessary inconvenience of having to pull over and then having to deal with the ticket issued. There are other gadgets that can be used to avoid a ticket, which carries with it a maximum fine of $ 500.00

Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act states the following:

Display screen visible to driver prohibited

78. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway if the display screen of a television, computer or other device in the motor vehicle is visible to the driver. 2009, c. 4, s. 1.

Exceptions

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the display screen of,

(a) a global positioning system navigation device while being used to provide navigation information;

(b) a hand-held wireless communication device or a device that is prescribed for the purpose of subsection 78.1 (1);

(c) a logistical transportation tracking system device used for commercial purposes to track vehicle location, driver status or the delivery of packages or other goods;

(d) a collision avoidance system device that has no other function than to deliver a collision avoidance system; or

(e) an instrument, gauge or system that is used to provide information to the driver regarding the status of various systems of the motor vehicle. 2009, c. 4, s. 1.

Same

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to the driver of an ambulance, fire department vehicle or police department vehicle. 2009, c. 4, s. 1.

Exemption by regulation

(4) The Minister may make regulations exempting any class of persons or vehicles or any device from this section and prescribing conditions and circumstances for any such exemption. 2009, c. 4, s. 1.

Hand-held devices prohibited

Wireless communication devices

78.1 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device or other prescribed device that is capable of receiving or transmitting telephone communications, electronic data, mail or text messages. 2009, c. 4, s. 2.

Entertainment devices

(2) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held electronic entertainment device or other prescribed device the primary use of which is unrelated to the safe operation of the motor vehicle. 2009, c. 4, s. 2.

Hands-free mode allowed

(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a person may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while using a device described in those subsections in hands-free mode. 2009, c. 4, s. 2.

Exceptions

(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to,

(a) the driver of an ambulance, fire department vehicle or police department vehicle;

(b) any other prescribed person or class of persons;

(c) a person holding or using a device prescribed for the purpose of this subsection; or

(d) a person engaged in a prescribed activity or in prescribed conditions or circumstances. 2009, c. 4, s. 2.

Same

(5) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the use of a device to contact ambulance, police or fire department emergency services. 2009, c. 4, s. 2.

Same

(6) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if all of the following conditions are met:

1. The motor vehicle is off the roadway or is lawfully parked on the roadway.

2. The motor vehicle is not in motion.

3. The motor vehicle is not impeding traffic. 2009, c. 4, s. 2.

The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador became the first province to curtain the use of cellphones by driver’s in vehicles. Newfoundland and Labrador was followed by Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Ontario, British Columbia, Saskatchewan. Almost all the United States have passed similar legislation.  More than 50 countries have passed similar laws regarding the use of cellphones while operating a motor vehicle.

See similar laws  in the Provinces and Territories:

Alberta: Has spoken about passing this law, but has not passed any legislation to date.

British Columbia’s Solicitor General, Kash P. Heed, has called for public input by August 7, 2009 on possible restrictions on cellphone use and on the issue of sanctions. Beginning January 1, 2010, typing, texting or dialing on a handheld cell phone or any handheld portable electronic device while driving in British Columbia, will be subject the driver to a $167  fine and a penalty of 3 points.

British Columbia:

Motor Vehicle Act [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 318

Part 3.1 — Use of Electronic Devices while Driving

Definitions

In this Part:

“electronic device” means

(a) a hand-held cellular telephone or another hand-held electronic device that includes a telephone function,

(b) a hand-held electronic device that is capable of transmitting or receiving electronic mail or other text-based messages, or

(c) a prescribed class or type of electronic device;

“use”, in relation to an electronic device, means one or more of the following actions:

(a) holding the device in a position in which it may be used;

(b) operating one or more of the device’s functions;

(c) communicating orally by means of the device with another person or another device;

(d) taking another action that is set out in the regulations by means of, with or in relation to an electronic device.

Prohibition against use of electronic device while driving

(1) A person must not use an electronic device while driving or operating a motor vehicle on a highway.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a person must not communicate by means of an electronic device with another person or another device by electronic mail or other text-based message.

Exceptions to prohibition – emergency personnel

Section 214.2 does not apply to the following persons who use an electronic device while carrying out their powers, duties or functions:

(a) a peace officer;

(b) a person driving or operating an ambulance as defined in the Emergency and Health Services Act;

(c) fire services personnel as defined in the Fire Services Act

Exceptions to prohibition – certain permitted activities

Section 214.2 does not apply to a person who uses an electronic device

(a) while operating a motor vehicle that is safely parked off the roadway or lawfully parked on the roadway and is not impeding traffic,

(b) to call or send a message to a police force, fire department or ambulance service about an emergency, or

(c) that is configured and equipped to allow hands-free use in a telephone function, is used in a hands-free manner and is used in accordance with the regulations, if any.

Exceptions to prohibition – by regulation

Section 214.2 does not apply to

(a) a prescribed class of persons who, while carrying out their powers, duties or functions and driving or operating a motor vehicle or a prescribed class of motor vehicle, use an electronic device or a prescribed class or type of electronic device,

(b) a person who uses an electronic device while engaged in a prescribed activity or in circumstances or under conditions set out in the regulations, or

(c) a person who uses a prescribed class or type of electronic device.

Power to make regulations
The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows:

(a) prescribing classes or types of electronic devices for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the definition of “electronic device” in section 214.1;

(b) setting out actions for the purposes of paragraph (d) of the definition of “use” in section 214.1;

(c) for the purposes of section 214.4 (c), setting out the manner in which, or the extent to which, a hands-free electronic device may be used in a telephone function;

(d) for the purposes of section 214.5;

(e) regulating the installation or mounting of classes or types of electronic devices in motor vehicles;

(f) exempting or excluding, with or without conditions, classes or types of electronic devices, classes of persons or classes of vehicles or classes of persons while driving or operating a motor vehicle or class of motor vehicle from the operation of a provision of this Part.

Use of Electronic Devices While Driving Regulation, B.C. Reg. 308/2009

Beginning January 1, 2010, typing, texting or dialing on a handheld cell phone or any handheld portable electronic device while driving in British Columbia, will be subject the driver to a $167  fine and a penalty of 3 points.

B.C. provides a month’s grace period (Jan.1-31/10) before issuing tickets with a $167.00 fine and three (3) points on February 1, 2010.

Manitoba: introduced legislation in November that proposed fines of at least $190 for using hand-held cellphones. Bill 5 was given royal assent on June 11, 2009. see Manitoba Highway Traffic Act – s.215.1(1) to 215.1(6).

C.C.S.M. c. H60 amended

1 The Highway Traffic Act is amended by this Act.

2 The following is added after section 186:

Smoking prohibited in motor vehicle if child present

186.1(1) No person shall smoke tobacco or have lighted tobacco in a motor vehicle while another person who is younger than 16 years of age is in the vehicle.

Smoking by children in a motor vehicle prohibited

186.1(2) No person who is younger than 16 years of age shall smoke tobacco or have lighted tobacco in a motor vehicle.  This subsection applies even if the person is alone in the vehicle and regardless of the age of any other person in the vehicle.

Prohibitions apply whether motor vehicle enclosed or not

186.1(3) Subsections (1) and (2) apply in respect of a motor vehicle even if its top or a window, sunroof, door or other feature of the vehicle is open.

Offence and penalty

186.1(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $1,000.

3 The following is added after section 215:

Definitions re hand-operated electronic devices

215.1(1) The following definitions apply in this section.

“hand-operated electronic device” means

(a) a cellular telephone;

(b) another electronic device that

(i) includes a telephone function, and

(ii) normally is held in the user’s hand during use or requires the user to use his or her hand to operate any of its functions;

(c) an electronic device that is not otherwise described in clause (a) or (b) but that

(i) is capable of transmitting or receiving e-mail or other text-based messages, and

(ii) normally is held in the user’s hand during use or requires the user to use his or her hand to operate any of its functions; or

(d) any other electronic device that is prescribed as a hand-operated electronic device by the regulations. (« appareil électronique à commande manuelle »)

“use”, in relation to a hand-operated electronic device, means any of the following actions:

(a) holding the device in a position in which it may be used;

(b) operating any of the device’s functions;

(c) communicating by means of the device with another person or another device, by spoken word or otherwise;

(d) looking at the device’s display; and

(e) taking any other action with or in relation to the device that is prescribed by the regulations. (« utiliser »)

Using hand-operated electronic device while driving prohibited

215.1(2) No person shall use a hand-operated electronic device while driving a vehicle on a highway unless,

(a) before using the device by hand, the person safely drives the vehicle off the roadway and keeps the vehicle stationary while using the device; or

(b) the device

(i) is a cellular telephone or another electronic device that includes a telephone function, and

(ii) is configured and equipped to allow hands-free use as a telephone and is used in a hands-free manner.

Exception

215.1(3) As an exception to subsection (2), a person may use a hand-operated electronic device by hand to call or send a message to a police force, fire department or ambulance service about an emergency.

Regulations

215.1(4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations

(a) for the purposes of the definition “hand-operated electronic device” in subsection (1), prescribing other devices as hand-operated electronic devices;

(b) for the purposes of the definition “use” in subsection (1), prescribing other actions that, when done with or in relation to a hand-operated electronic device, constitute using it;

(c) respecting the exemption, with or without conditions, of certain classes or types of devices or vehicles, or certain classes of persons, from the operation of a provision of this section;

(d) respecting any matter the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary or advisable to carry out the purposes of this section.

The Bill prohibits drivers from using a cell phone or similar electronic communication device except

to make a hands-free telephone call;

while pulled over and stopped; or

to communicate with a police, fire or ambulance service in an emergency.

Regulations may be made to add further exemptions for certain classes of devices, vehicles or persons, or to prohibit the use of other kinds of devices while driving. The fine is $ 190.80.

In Newfoundland and Labrador: if you are convicted of this offence (which came into effect on April 1, 2003), you will receive a ticket and a fine in a range of $100.00 to $400.00 and will accumulate four (4) demerit points. If the defendant defaults on payment of the fine, they face possible incarceration of 2 – 14 days. See section 176.1 of the Newfoundland and Labrador Highway Traffic Act.

New Brunswick: Has no legislation restricting cellphone or hand-held communication or electronic devices.

Northwest Territories: The Northwest Territories created their own Motor Vehicles Act in 1988. There is no cellphone ban or hand-held laws on the books.  which was subsequently adopted by Nunavut in April 1999 without amendment.

In Nova Scotia: See Bill 7 (An Act to Amend Chapter 293 of the Revised Statutes, 1989, the Motor Vehicle Act).If you are convicted of this offence (which began on April 1, 2008) , you will be fined starting at $135.75  for a first offence, $164.50  and up to $222.00 for repeated subsequent offences (see N.S. Reg.4/2001 – 5A (1) Category A).  See section 100D (1) & (2) of the Nova Scotia Motor Vehicle Act.

Cellular telephones

100D (1) It is an offence for a person to use a hand-held cellular telephone or engage in text messaging on any communications device while operating a vehicle on a highway.

(2) This Section does not apply to a person who uses a hand-held cellular telephone or other communications device to report an immediate emergency situation. 2007, c. 45, s. 7 .

Nunavut: In 1999, Nunvut adopted the Motor Vehicles Act of the Northwest Territories; as a result, there is no ban on the use of cellphones or other hand-held devices.

Ontario:

Aggressive enforcement will commence on February 1, 2010. It is being suggested that the ticket’s fine will start at $155.00, up to a maxium of $ 500.00. No demerit points are accumulated upon conviction.

Prince Edward Island prohibits (which began April 1, 2007)  newly licensed drivers (Stage 1)  from using cellphones (or utilizing headphones) or any hand-held electronic device while operating or having care or control of a motor vehicle. driving. See section 6 of Graduated Driver Licensing Regulations P.E.I Reg. EC225/07 + P.E.I. Reg. EC321/01 ($100.00 fine)), -  Enabling Legislation- subsection 69(1) of the  Highway Traffic Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988.

Goes into effect on January 23, 2010 and the fine is a ticket between $250 – $400 and driver accumulates 3 demerit points.

Quebec:

In Quebec: if you are convicted of this offence (which began on April 1, 2008), you will receive a fine of $115.00 + and will accumulate three (3) demerit points. Bill 42 (An Act to amend the Highway Safety Code and the Regulation respecting demerit points -see section 26.1) See sections 439.1 and 508.3 of the Highway Safety Code.

Hand-held telephones.

439.1. No person may, while driving a road vehicle, use a hand-held device that includes a telephone function.

Presumption.

For the purposes of this section, a driver who is holding a hand-held device that includes a telephone function is presumed to be using the device.

Exception.

This prohibition does not apply to drivers of emergency vehicles in the performance of their duties.

2007, c. 40, s. 58.

Headphones.

440. In no case may the driver of a road vehicle or person riding a bicycle use headphones or earphones.

Exception.

This section does not apply to a device used in conversational exchanges among its users to the extent that the device allows surrounding traffic noises to be heard. 1986, c. 91, s. 440.

Saskatchewan:

Hand-held electronic communications equipment prohibited

241.1(1) In this section and in section 287:

(a) “electronic communications equipment” means a cellular phone or
other prescribed equipment;

(b) “make a phone call” means to make, answer or end a phone call, or to
transmit or receive voice communication;

(c) “new driver” means a new driver as defined in the regulations;

(d) “use” means, with respect to electronic communications equipment, to
use the electronic communications equipment to make a phone call, text, talk,
email, or surf or access the Internet, or for any other prescribed purpose.

(2) No driver shall use electronic communications equipment while driving a
motor vehicle on a highway.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to:

(a) a driver who is not a new driver and who, while driving a motor vehicle
on a highway:

(i) activates the electronic communications equipment to make a phone
call by pressing a button once on the electronic communications equipment,
or on a device that is linked to electronic communications equipment,
and does not hold the electronic communications equipment; or

(ii) utilizes his or her voice to activate electronic communications
equipment to make a phone call and does not hold the electronic
communications equipment;

(b) a driver if the driver is using electronic communications equipment to
report an emergency to a police service, a fire department or emergency
medical services or to request an ambulance;

(c) a prescribed person or prescribed class of persons; or

(d) a prescribed vehicle or prescribed class of vehicles. 2009, c.35, s.11.

Saskatchewan’s cellphone ban begins on January 1, 2010. The penalty will be fine of $280 and four demerit points.

Yukon Territory: there doesn’t appear to be any restrictions on motorists on cellphones or hand-held devices in the Motor Vehicles Act. 

Do any of the U.S. States have similar laws on the books? Almost all of them.  There are only 5 U.S. States – California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Washington (includes the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands) that have an all out ban on operator of motor vehicles using cell phones. There are 17 U.S. States which have some form of prohibition on driving and cell phone use and text messaging, especially teen drivers and bus drivers.

See the chart laying out the restrictions in each State of the United States of America.

New York Police handed out nine thousane and sixteen (9016)  $120.00 summonses to motorists, who talked on a cell phone without using a headset, on March 12, 2009 in a one day blitz in New York.

At least in 50 other countries around the world, the cellular phone has already been banned.

Here is a list of some of those countries who will not allow motorists to talk on the phone while driving:

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Ireland, Isle of Mann, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan-Islamabad, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan and the United Kingdom.

January 9, 2010: U.S. States laws on cellphone and texting restriction.

January 30, 2010: Study: Hand-held cellphone bans have no effect.

February 1, 2010 – the first day of the hand-held device ban in Toronto. What the Toronto Police are saying and their campaign in response to the implementation of the hand-held electronic device ban.

Update:

Tinting has a number of different benefits. It can improve the look of your vehice and for the driver and passengers, there are certain safety considerations when applying the tint. There is almost 100% protection from exposure to Ultra Violet Rays (U.V. Rays), reduced headlight glare from other vehicles and reduced glare from the sunlight. If a film is applied properly, it can prevent or at least reduce, thieves from breaking into your vehicle, as it takes alot of work and a longer period of time to access the vehicle. This same tinting film can reduce the amount of broken glass (even though by regulation it should be “safety glass”)  from entering the vehicle in the event of an accident.

Why have tinting laws been put into place with respect to motor vehicles?

Law enforcement officers are always nervous when approaching a motor vehicle with unknown occupants.  They want to be able to see the driver and the occupants. This way they can identify the driver and occupants and allows them to see if there are any weapons in the vehicle or unusual behaviour from any of the occupants. Reduced tinting provides them with a comfort level they feel they need to perform their jobs, when pulling over or approaching motor vehicles.

Reduced tinting allows pedestrians and other drivers to make eye contact with the driver of a vehicle. This is helpful when a pedestrian is attempting to cross the street or when walking near or around motor vehicles. When other driver’s are entering a street or highway, it is helpful when they can make direct eye contact with other motor vehicle operators. Reduced tinting allows this to happen.

A concern is that if the tint is too dark, others will not be able to see the driver and occupants of the vehicle and worse, the driver will not be able to easily see outside of their vehicle. This is only exacerbated by darkness, rain, snow, ice, mud or dirt.

Canada:

Alberta: Highway Traffic Act

Window glazing

52(1) Subject to this section, no person shall place or install in a motor vehicle a transparent, translucent or opaque material on or in place of the

(a) windshield glazing, or

(b) side window glazing that is beside or forward of the driver on the right and left hand side of the motor vehicle.

(2) No person shall place or install in a motor vehicle a transparent, translucent or opaque material on or in place of the rear window glazing unless the motor vehicle is equipped with outside rear view mirrors on the left and right of the motor vehicle that comply with the requirements of section 53(2).

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not

(a) apply to the equivalent replacement of the glazing installed by the manufacturer of the motor vehicle,

(b) prohibit the use of clear untinted frost shields, or

(c) prohibit the use of window stickers as long as they do not impair the operator’s field of vision or otherwise impair the safe operation of the motor vehicle.

(4) The owner of a motor vehicle shall ensure that the view through all frost shields on the motor vehicle is not impaired by discoloration, scratches or other damage.

(5) No person shall place or install any material on or in place of any window glazing that, by reason of sunlight or the headlights of other vehicles, casts a glare at other vehicles on the highway.

(6) No person shall, after January 1, 1981 operate on a highway a motor vehicle that contains material that is prohibited by this section. RSA 1980 cH-7 s52

Windshield to be clear

126 No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway if the view through the windshield or windows is so obscured by mud, frost, steam or any other thing as to make the driving of the vehicle hazardous or dangerous. RSA 1980 cH-7 s126

British Columbia: Motor Vehicle Act

From the Vancouver Police Department, Traffic Section website:

Tinted Windows

• Front window shields can not be tinted more than 75 mm below the top of window.
• Front side windows can not be tinted.
• Rear window shields may be tinted provided the vehicle has outside mirrors on both the driver’s and passenger’s side.
• Windows behind driver may be tinted.

An excerpt from British Columbia Regulation 26/58 ( Motor Vehicle Act – Motor Vehicle Act Regulation – includes amendments up to B.C. Reg .236/2009, November 15, 2009 )

Division 7 — Other Equipment

Windshields and windows

7.05 (1)  No person shall drive or operate on a highway a motor vehicle the windshield or any window of which is in such condition that the vision of the driver is impaired.

Windshield stickers

(2)  No person shall drive or operate a vehicle on a highway while his view of the highway or of any intersecting highway is unduly obstructed by any windshield sticker, sign, poster or other thing or material placed over or affixed to the windshield or any window of the vehicle.

Windshield wiper

(3)  A motor vehicle other than a motorcycle equipped with a windshield shall also be equipped with a device which is effective for clearing rain, snow or other moisture from the windshield.

(3.1)  A bus manufactured prior to January 1, 1971, shall be equipped with 2 windshield wipers.

Windshield and windows, replacing glass

(4)  No person shall replace, or cause to be replaced, any glass in a door or windshield or window of a motor vehicle or a camper except with safety glass, provided that glass replaced in a windshield of a motor vehicle shall not be heat treated or case hardened glass.

Windshield and windows, new vehicles

(5)  No person shall sell any new motor vehicle unless the glass in the windshield and all the doors and all the windows with which the vehicle is equipped is safety glass, provided that the glass in the windshield shall not be heat treated or case hardened glass.

(6)  On and after January 1, 1968, no person shall sell a new camper unless the glass in all the doors and all the windows with which the camper is equipped is safety glass.

(7)  A bus manufactured prior to January 1, 1971, shall be equipped with a device for preventing or removing ice or condensation from the inside of the windshield.

(8)  No person shall drive or operate on a highway a motor vehicle which has affixed to or placed on the windshield or a window any material that reduces the light transmitted through the windshield or window unless the material is affixed to or placed on

(a) the windshield but not more than 75 mm below the top of the windshield,

(b) a side window that is behind the driver, or

(c) the rear window if the motor vehicle is equipped with outside rear view mirrors on the left and right side of the motor vehicle.

(9)  If a motor vehicle contains manufactured glass, tinting contained within the glass must meet the minimum light transmittancy requirements under the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

[am. B.C. Regs. 21/61; 46/67, ss. 12, 13; 448/87, s. 1; 21/92, s. 1.]

Manitoba: The Highway Traffic Act

Windshields

53 Every motor vehicle, except a motorcycle or a moped, shall be equipped with a windshield which will afford the driver a clear and unobstructed view.

Spray tints on windshields prohibited

54(1) Subject to subsection (2), no person shall operate on a highway a motor vehicle

(a) the windshield of which; or

(b) any part of the windshield of which;

is sprayed or coated with any substance which reduces the amount of light that is capable of being transmitted through the windshield.

Exception

54(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in the case of a motor vehicle that has been equipped with a tinted windshield that was tinted during the manufacture of the glass.

Permit for certain obstructions of view

58 Notwithstanding subsections 182(4) and 57(3), a motor vehicle may be equipped in a manner forbidden by either or both of those provisions if the owner thereof has, upon written application, obtained from the registrar a permit for the purpose, specifying the equipment authorized thereby; but the registrar may issue the permit only if, in his absolute discretion, he is satisfied

(a) that the circumstances in which the equipment for which a permit is applied for is required are of such a special and unusual character that it is not in the public interest to refuse to issue the permit; and

(b) that the owner of the vehicle will use the equipment, or cause it to be used, with due regard to the public safety.

No plastic, etc. to be applied to windows

182(5) No person shall apply a plastic film or substance to the windshield, side windows or rear window of a motor vehicle which, after application,

(a) reduces the transmission of light through the windshield or window below the minimum level for light transmission prescribed in the regulations; or

(b) causes reflection of light above the maximum level for light reflection prescribed in the regulations.

Certain types of glass prohibited

182(6) No person shall equip a motor vehicle with glass of a type which transmits light in one direction only.

Driving vehicle with plastic applied to windows prohibited

182(7) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway which has been equipped contrary to subsection (5) or (6).

Use of frost shields excepted

182(8) Subsections (5), (6) and (7) do not apply in the case of a motor vehicle equipped with frost shields as required by the Act or displaying a sticker for which a permit has been issued under section 58

Window Tinting Regulation, Man. Reg. 99/93

Newfoundland & Labrador:

Newfoundland and Labrador:

6. WINDSHIELDS AND OTHER WINDOWS (page 11)

It is an offence to have a sign or other object in the window that might block or impair the driver’s vision. However, certificates and stickers required or allowed by the Highway Traffic Act or Regulations may be put in the proper
positions (inspection certificates, parking permits, etc.). Window tinting is not permitted on the windshield and the front windows.

13. VEHICLE MODIFICATIONS WITH AFTERMARKET PARTS (page 12)

Window tinting; adjusting the height of vehicle; modifying wheels, tires, exhaust etc. will void warranty and legally may not be permitted. You should consult the HTA and accompanying regulations and acts for clarification.

Under the authority of section 195 of the Highway Traffic Act and the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act , the Lieutenant-Governor in Council makes the following regulations.

Window Glazing:

(1) A person shall not place or install in a motor vehicle non-transparent, translucent or opaque material on or in place of the windshield glazing; or

(b) side window glazing that is beside or forward of the driver on the right and left hand side of the motor vehicle in a manner or to an extent that the motor vehicle no longer conforms with the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act CMVSS 205 Glazing Materials, as amended.

(2) Subsection (1) does not

(a)  apply to the equivalent replacement of the glazing installed by the manufacturer of the motor vehicle;

(b)  prohibit the use of clear untinted frost shields; or

(c)  prohibit the use of window stickers as long as they do not impair the operator’s field of vision or otherwise impair the safe operation of the motor vehicle and are used in accordance with conditions prescribed by the Act.

(3) The owner of a motor vehicle shall ensure that the view through a frost shield on the motor vehicle is not impaired by discoloration, scratches or other damages.

(4) A person shall not place or install a material on or in place of a window glazing that by reason of sunlight or the headlights of other vehicles casts a glare at other vehicles on the highway.

(5) A person shall not operate on a highway a motor vehicle that contains material that is prohibited by this section.

Violations of any of sections of subsections above – Maximum Fine = $180.00, Minimum Fine =$45.00

New Brunswick: Motor Vehicle Act

MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT

238(1)No person shall operate on a highway a motor vehicle
(a)with any non-transparent material on the front windshield, side wings or side or rear windows of such vehicle, or

(b)having on the exterior or in the interior thereof, any ornament or other thing that obstructs or is liable to obstruct the driver’s clear view of the highway or any intersecting highway.

238(1.1) Subject to subsection (1.11), no person shall place or install in or on the front windshield of a motor vehicle or in or on the side wings or side windows to the right or the left of the driver of a motor vehicle any colour spray or other coloured material or any opaque or reflective material that may

(a) obstruct the driver’s clear view of the highway or any intersecting highway, or

(b) substantially obscure the interior of the motor vehicle when viewed from outside the motor vehicle.

238 (1.11) No person shall place or install in or on the front windshield of a motor vehicle or in or on the side wings or side windows to the right or the left side of the driver of a motor vehicle, any colour spray or other coloured material or any opaque or reflective material that prevents more than thirty per cent of any light from passing through in either direction when measured by a photometer.

238 (1.2) Subsections (1.1) and (1.11) do not apply in relation to the installation of front windshields, side wings or side windows during the initial construction or assembly of the motor vehicle nor to the replacement of windshields, side wings or side windows with equivalents to those installed during the initial construction or assembly.

238 (1.3) Subject to subsection (1.4), no person shall operate on a highway a motor vehicle

(a) on which the front windshield, or the side wings or side windows to the right or the left of the driver, have been treated, coated or covered with a colour spray or other coloured material or any opaque or reflective material in such a manner as to obstruct the driver’s clear view of the highway or any intersecting highway, or

(b) on which the front windshield, or the side wings or side windows to the right or left of the driver, have been treated, coated or covered with a colour spray or other coloured material or any opaque or reflective material that substantially obscures the interior of the motor vehicle when viewed from outside the motor vehicle.

238 (1.4) No person shall operate on a highway a motor vehicle on which the front windshield, or the side wings or side windows to the right or the left of the driver, have been treated, coated or covered with a colour spray or other coloured material or any opaque or reflective material that prevents more than thirty per cent of any light from passing through in either direction when measured by a photometer.

Northwest Territories: Motor Vehicles Act

Obstruction of view by windshield stickers
141. No person shall operate, on a highway, any motor vehicle with a sticker, sign, poster or other non-transparent material placed over, or affixed to the windshield or a side
or a rear window that unduly obstructs his or her view of the highway or an intersecting highway.

Nova Scotia: Motor Vehicle Act

Mirror, windshield or television  – Section 184:

(4) No person shall on any highway drive a motor vehicle when there is in or upon the windshield, sidewings, side or rear windows, or the openings for the same or any of them, any sign, poster or other nontransparent material other than a certificate, sticker or other device required by or pursuant to this Act to be displayed thereon or a sticker approved by the Minister that is positioned as directed by the Minister.

(5) No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle having attached therein or thereon any ornament, decoration, novelty or other thing that is so located that it obstructs or is likely to obstruct the vision or distract the attention of the driver of the vehicle.

Nunavut – CONSOLIDATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT  R.S.N.W.T. 1988,c.M-16

Obstruction of view by windshield stickers
141. No person shall operate, on a highway, any motor vehicle with a sticker, sign, poster or other non-transparent material placed over, or affixed to the windshield or a side
or a rear window that unduly obstructs his or her view of the highway or an intersecting highway.

Ontario:

In Ontario, the level of premissable tinting of  the front windshield or front side windows of motor vehicles is not specifically defined by the Highway Traffic Act (see section 73 (2) & (3) ). The Act does prevent operator’s of motor vehicles from obstructing the driver’s view, or the interior of the motor vehicle from outside.

It is up to the law enforcement officer’s discretion as to whether or not the tinting that is used “substantially obscures the interior of the motor vehicle when viewed from outside the motor vehicle”. This means that if the officer can’t see the occupants or the interior of the vehicle, when viewing it from the outside, a charge may be laid. When an officer approaches any motor vehicle, he or she does not know what to expect upon arriving at the driver’s window and without having the opportunity to know what the interior of the vehicle holds, they are at a severe disadvantage. This is one of the main reasons this tinting law exists and it is for this same reason, that tickets will be issued if the officer can not see the driver and the other occupants and what they are holding, that a ticket will be issued.

Ultimately, the court will want to know, after a charge has been laid, is whether or not the tint on the front windows (not the back windows) “substantially obscures the interior” from those on the outside. looking in.

In Ontario, the Highway Traffic Act provides the following language regarding tinting:

Equipment obstructing view

Signs, objects, etc.

73. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon a highway,

(a) with any sign, poster or other non-transparent material or object placed on the windshield or on any window of such motor vehicle; or

(b) with any object placed in, hung on or attached to the motor vehicle,

in a manner that will obstruct the driver’s view of the highway or any intersecting highway.

Colour coating obstructing view prohibited

(2) No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon a highway where the surface of the windshield or of any window of the vehicle has been coated with any colour spray or other colour coating in such a manner as to obstruct the driver’s view of the highway or any intersecting highway.

Colour coating obscuring interior

(3) No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle on which the surface of the windshield or of any window to the direct left or right of the driver’s seat has been coated with any coloured spray or other coloured or reflective material that substantially obscures the interior of the motor vehicle when viewed from outside the motor vehicle.

Signs, etc., required by Act or regulations

(4) This section does not prevent the use of signs, markers or equipment required under this Act or the regulations.

What is the fine for violating section 72 (2) & (3) of the HTA?

The Fine can be found in the Ontario Court of Justice’s (updated Jan,1/10) SCHEDULE 43 (The Highway Traffic Act) which lays out the set fines for violations of the Highway Traffic Act. See items 198,199 & 200 of the Schedule, which sets the fine at $ 85.00.
In addition to the set fine of $85.00, you must add the court fee of $ 5.00 and the victim fine surcharge of $ 20.00 – The total fine payable is $ 110.00.

Prince Edward Island:

Prince Edward Island: Highway Traffic Act

Equipment of non-resident to comply:

34. (1) All motor vehicles owned or operated by non-residents on the highways of this province are subject to all restrictions and regulations as to dimensions, equipment and traffic control required in the case of
motor vehicles registered in this province.

Window Glazing (Front and Side):

138. (1) Subject to this section, no person shall place or install in a motor vehicle a transparent, translucent or opaque material on or in the place of the

(a) windshield glazing; or

(b) side window glazing that is beside or forward of the driver on the right and left hand side of the motor vehicle.

Rear:

(2) No person shall place or install in a motor vehicle a transparent, translucent or opaque material on or in place of the rear window glazing unless the motor vehicle is equipped with outside rear view mirrors on
the left and right of the motor vehicle.

Application:
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not

(a) apply to the equivalent replacement of the glazing installed by the manufacturer of the motor vehicle;

(b) prohibit the use of clear untinted frost shields; or

(c) prohibit the use of window stickers as long as they do not impair the operator’s field of vision or otherwise impair the safe operation of the motor vehicle.

Frost Shields
(4) The owner of a motor vehicle shall ensure that the view through all frost shields on the motor vehicle is not impaired by discoloration, scratches or other damage.

Glare
(5) No person shall place or install any material on or in place of any window glazing that, by reason of sunlight or the headlights of other vehicles, casts a glare at other vehicles on the highway.

Offence
(6) No person shall operate on a highway a motor vehicle that contains material that is prohibited by this section. 1985,c.19,s.11.

Schedule Highway Traffic Act Penalties see:

138(1)(2)(5) Installing improper window glazing – Minimum Fine $100, Maximum Fine $200

138(6) Operating vehicle with improper glazing – Minimum Fine $100, Maximum Fine $200

Quebec:  Highway Safety Code

Standards for windows.
265. The windshield and the other windows of a motor vehicle must conform to the standards prescribed by regulation to ensure good visibility for the driver.

Visibility.
They must be free of any material that might reduce visibility for the driver. 1986, c. 91, s. 265.

Prohibited coating.
266. No person may coat the windshield or the front side windows of a road vehicle or cause them to be coated with a substance having the effect of reducing or preventing good visibility from inside or outside the vehicle. 1986, c. 91, s. 266; 1996, c. 56, s. 75.

Dirt.
267. A peace officer may require the driver of a vehicle to clean or clear the windshield and windows where obstructing matter reduces visibility for the driver.

Compliance.
The driver must comply with the requirement of the peace officer. 1986, c. 91, s. 267.

Offence and penalty.

281.1. Every person who drives a road vehicle whose windshield and windows are not clear of all substances which might hinder the driver’s ability to see is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine of $100 to $200. 1990, c. 83, s. 116.  Fines have increased, see below.

Offence and penalty.

281.2. Every person who drives a road vehicle whose windshield or front side windows are coated with a material that does not meet the standards prescribed under section 265 is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine of $100 to $200. 1996, c. 56, s. 77.  Fines have increased, see below.

From the Government of Quebec’s website:

Did you know that tinting of a vehicle’s windows on either side of the driver is prohibited if less than 70% of light (as measured by a photometer) can filter through?

Automobile windows are already tinted by the manufacturer when a vehicle rolls off the assembly line. Should you add a tint to the windows, less than 70% of light may be getting through, and your safety would be at
risk. If light transmittance is less than 70%, you will be liable for a minimum fine of $100.

Tinted Windows

Before you decide to tint the windows of your vehicle, ensure that you are aware of the restrictions that apply.

• No material substance that darkens the glass may be applied or sprayed on the windshield. A strip no more than 15 cm wide may however be placed along the upper edge of the windshield;
• Windows on either side of the driver must let in at least 70% of light when measured with a photometer.

Remember, the inside of a vehicle and its occupants must be able to be identified. Deeply tinted windows:

• reduce a driver’s field of vision;
• make it difficult to see contrasts;
• affect a driver’s night vision.

The above tinting restrictions do not apply to the rear side windows or the rear window itself.

Fines*
If the front side windows of your vehicle let in less than 70% of light, you are liable to a fine. Here are two examples:

• Example 1
  A police officer pulls over your vehicle and takes a photometric reading of the front side windows. The windows let in less than 70% of light. The officer issues a statement of offence to you. The fine may vary as follows:
  • The driver and owner of a passenger vehicle: $154 to $274
  • Driver of a heavy vehicle: $125 to $344
  • Owner of a heavy vehicle: $249 to $663
• Example 2
  A police officer pulls over your vehicle and issues a notice for inspection of the front side windows of your vehicle, which requires you to go to a mechanical inspection agent approved by the SAAQ. Failure to undergo an inspection exposes you to a $438 to $865 fine. If the inspection agent certifies that the windows fail to comply with the law, a notice is issued requiring the owner or driver to make the necessary changes within 48 hours. After the 48-hour time limit, the inspection agent is again required to verify if the windows meet standards. If corrections are not made within the specified deadline, the vehicle must be removed from the road. If you continue to drive the vehicle, you may:
  • be issued a violation notice and be liable to a $154 to $274 fine for each failure to comply;
  • be required to have your vehicle removed from the road at your expense until photometric testing certifies that the vehicle windows meet standards.

*These amounts are subject to change and include fines provided under the Highway Safety Code, registry fees and a contribution to IVAC, (Please note that additional fees may apply).

If there is any doubt, the law allows a police officer to issue an inspection notice. This notice will require you to go to a mechanical inspection agent certified by the SAAQ, to determine if your vehicle windows comply with safety standards. Here is another Government of Quebec (Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec or Society of the Quebec Automobile Insurance) website which has even more “tinted window” specific information contained within it (including fines for driver’s of these vehicles and the owner of the vehicles, which aren’t always the same).

Offences Under the Highway Safety Code

Offences under the highway safety code	Fine*
* These amounts are subject to change and include fines provided under the Highway Safety Code, registry fees and a contribution to IVAC, (Please note that additional fees may apply).
Removing or deactivating an air bag	$438 to $865
Tinting the front-seat side windows so as to let in less than 70% of light from the outside	$154 to $274
Apply a reflective material on a window so as to turn it into a mirror	$274 to $438
Removing or altering an original seat belt	$274 to $438
Changing the colour of lights or reflectors	$154 to $274
Reducing the brightness of lights or reflectors	$154 to $274
Using springs that have been shortened, bundled or heated to deformity	$154 to $274
Changing the muffler or exhaust system that makes it noisier than the original	$154 to $274
Placing a strip more than 15 cm wide that shades the top of the windshield	$154 to $274

Offences under the Highway Safety Code	Fine*
Note: April 1, 2008, new penalties apply to drivers who commit an excessive speeding offence (in French)* These amounts are subject to change and include fines provided under the Highway Safety Code, registry fees and a contribution to IVAC, (Please note that additional fees may apply).

Saskatchewan: Highway Traffic Act

Obstructing driver’s view prohibited

246(1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway unless the driver has a clear view of the highway to the front and to both sides of the vehicle.

(2) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway unless the driver has, without need of facing to the rear, a clear view of the highway to the rear and any vehicle approaching from the rear.

(3) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway with any object placed on or near the windshield or on or near any window of the vehicle in a manner that obstructs the driver’s view. 2004, c.T-18.1, s.246.

General offence and penalty

275  Any person who contravenes any provision of this Act or the regulations for which no other penalty is specifically provided, or who disobeys an order of the board, is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction:

(a) in the case of an individual, to a fine of not more than $1,000; and

(b) in the case of a corporation, to a fine of not more than $2,000. 2004, c.T-18.1, s.275.

Yukon Territory: Motor Vehicles Act

Obscured windshield

190 – No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway if the view through the windshield or windows thereof is so obscured by mud, frost, steam, or any other thing as to make the driving of the vehicle hazardous or dangerous. R.S., c.118, s.183.

Penalties

247 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, a person who is guilty of an offence under this Act or the regulations for which a penalty is not otherwise provided is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $500 and in default of payment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months without the option of a fine.

The CANADA MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS – SCHEDULE III (Subsections 2(1), 4(1) and 5(2) will be amending their standards which will come into force on August 31, 2011. See Column I “Glazing Materials” Item (CMVSS) -205 (Schedule III to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations).

New York -Legal Opinion on Window Tinting from the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

Tinting Laws in the United Kingdom.