Update:

If you were one of the motorists who were unable to complete your road test at a DriveTest facility and had your temporary driver’s licence extended as a result, your Ontario driver’s licence will expire tomorrow if you haven’t booked a road test between September 1 and October 12, 2010.

The Ministry of Transportation reports that there are Fifty One Thousand (51,000.00) Licences across the Province that are required to be renewed,

The Ministry of Transportation has posted the following information:

Update: see previous posts – May 18, 2009 Ontario Auto Insurance – Reducing Accident Benefits from 100 to 25 Thousand Dollars., June 11, 2009 Insurance Companies exercise discrimination due to “perceived genetic risks”., July 19, 2009 Insurance Rates Skyrocket in Ontario, October 5, 2009 Ontario Liberals Support Auto Insurance Profits, November 5, 2009 Liberals Take Care of Ontario’s Auto Insurance Companies, November 13, 2009 Home Insurance Skyrockets in Ontario, August 22, 2010 Auto Insurance Rules Change September 1, 2010 (Ontario).

Auto Insurance companies are complaining again, this time about the costs of treating people with psychological issues, as a result of auto accidents. Apparently the profit margin isn’t as healthy and robust as these private insurance companies expect.

The latest profit figures released this week by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions suggest insurers of homes, autos and businesses enjoyed about a 40 per cent bounce in profits in the second quarter of the year.

See this story in the Toronto Star.

A dispute is simmering over the role psychologists will play in treatment of Ontario residents who suffer minor injuries in motor vehicle accidents.

Auto insurers wanted to see treatment of depression and anxiety after more minor sprains, strains, cuts and dislocations paid from a new $3,500 treatment cap that will come into effect starting September 1, 2010.

But a report prepared by a task force of psychologists suggests stress disorders and phobia may develop, regardless of the severity of an injury, and the cost of assessment and treatment should not be caught by that cap.

“It would be inappropriate to consider… psychological conditions and disorders… as being similar to the ‘minor’ physical injuries that are addressed in the (new) minor injury guideline, minor injury definition, and by extension, treatable with the $3,500 cap,” argues a task force whose 100-page report on auto insurance claims is posted to on the website of the Ontario Psychological Association.

The Ontario Psychological Association (the “OPA”) prepared the July 29, 2010 report, named “The OPA Guidelines for Assessment and Treatment in Auto Insurance Claims” in anticipation of the changes in Auto Insurance effective Wednesday, September 1, 2010 and the Auto Insurance Industry does not agree with it.

This isn’t the first time that the Auto Insurance Industry has disagreed with a report from the OPA. On March 31, 2009 OPA prepared a response to the recommendations of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario or (FSCO) regarding auto insurance in the Province of Ontario. The response was named “Ontario Psychological Association Response: Report on the Five Year Review of Automobile Insurance”. One of the concerns that the OPA expressed was the limited caps on healthcare needs and the resulting reality wherein those that are affected by an motor vehicle accident, would end up having his or her benefits end and would then be forced to go to our public healthcare services, thus putting an unnecessary strain on Ontario’s OHIP system.

The argument for Public Auto Insurance continues to be made through the actions of the Private Auto Insurance Industry. As the Private Auto Insurance Companies continue to successfully lobby FSCO and the McGuinty government to allow them to function as extremely profitable Corporations and continually raise the premiums for mandatory auto insurance in Ontario; Ontarians are getting fed up with the corporate greed, which has the overall effect of emptying their already lean pockets.

Ontarians deserve to have access to fair affordable auto insurance, as other Provinces currently enjoy, that already have Public Auto Insurance in place.

Update:

The Special Investigations Unit (S.I.U), accompanied by the OPP, is investigating the death of a motorcyclist’s passenger, who fell off a motorcycle, when Durham Police tried to pull over the vehicle and the motorcyclist accelerated rather than stopping on the 401 on Friday night (August 27, 2010) at approximately 11:40 p.m.

This took place last night on the westbound lanes of Kings Highway 401, close to Brock Street in Whitby, Ontario and caused the highway to be shut down for twelve (12) hours.

After falling from the back of the motorcycle, the passenger was hit by several other vehicles travelling at speeds in excess of 90 km/h. The passenger died on the highway, as a result of her injuries.

The operator of the motorcycle took off and kept going after his passenger fell off. The police have not yet located him. It isn’t surprising that the driver of the motorcycle left the scene of the accident; but it is surprising that the other vehicles that came into contact with the unidentified passenger, kept going as well and did not remain at the scene of the accident(s).

These are the laws surrounding police chases of motor vehicles:

SUSPECT APPREHENSION PURSUITS (under the POLICE SERVICES ACT – see Ontario Regulation 266/10), published on Ontario e-laws on June 30, 2010.

See ONTARIO REGULATION 266/10 made under the POLICE SERVICES ACT

SUSPECT APPREHENSION PURSUITS

Interpretation
1. (1) For the purposes of this Regulation, a suspect apprehension pursuit occurs when a police officer attempts to direct the driver of a motor vehicle to stop, the driver refuses to obey the officer and the officer pursues in a motor vehicle for the purpose of stopping the fleeing motor vehicle or identifying the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle.

(2) A suspect apprehension pursuit is discontinued when police officers are no longer pursuing a fleeing motor vehicle for the purpose of stopping the fleeing motor vehicle or identifying the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle.

Initiating or Continuing pursuit
2. (1) A police officer may pursue, or continue to pursue, a fleeing motor vehicle that fails to stop,

(a) if the police officer has reason to believe that a criminal offence has been committed or is about to be committed; or

(b) for the purposes of motor vehicle identification or the identification of an individual in the vehicle.

(2) Before initiating a suspect apprehension pursuit, a police officer shall determine that there are no alternatives available as set out in the written procedures of,

(a) the police force of the officer established under subsection 6 (1), if the officer is a member of an Ontario police force as defined in the Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009;

(b) a police force whose local commander was notified of the appointment of the officer under subsection 6 (1) of the Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009, if the officer was appointed under Part II of that Act;

or

(c) the local police force of the local commander who appointed the officer under subsection 15 (1) of the Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009, if the officer was appointed under Part III of that Act.

(3) A police officer shall, before initiating a suspect apprehension pursuit, determine whether in order to protect public safety the immediate need to apprehend an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle or the need to identify the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle outweighs the risk to public safety that may result from the pursuit.

(4) During a suspect apprehension pursuit, a police officer shall continually reassess the determination made under subsection (3) and shall discontinue the pursuit when the risk to public safety that may result from the pursuit outweighs the risk to public safety that may result if an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle is not immediately apprehended or if the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle is not identified.

(5) No police officer shall initiate a suspect apprehension pursuit for a non-criminal offence if the identity of an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle is known.

(6) A police officer engaging in a suspect apprehension pursuit for a non-criminal offence shall discontinue the pursuit once the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle is identified.

Notice of Pursuit
3. (1) A police officer shall notify a dispatcher when the officer initiates a suspect apprehension pursuit.

(2) The dispatcher shall notify a communications supervisor or road supervisor, if a supervisor is available, that a suspect apprehension pursuit has been initiated.

Order to Discontinue Pursuit
4. (1) A communications or road supervisor shall order police officers to discontinue a suspect apprehension pursuit if, in his or her opinion, the risk to public safety that may result from the pursuit outweighs the risk to public safety that may result if an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle is not immediately apprehended or if the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle is not identified.

(2) A police officer who receives an order under subsection (1) shall obey the order even if the officer is not a member of the police force of the communications or road supervisor who made the order.

Policies
5. Every police services board shall establish policies that are consistent with this Regulation about suspect apprehension pursuits.

Procedures for Tactics
6. (1) Every police force shall establish written procedures that set out the tactics that may be used in its jurisdiction,

(a) as an alternative to suspect apprehension pursuit; and

(b) for following or stopping a fleeing motor vehicle.

(2) Every police force shall establish written procedures that are consistent with this Regulation about suspect apprehension pursuits in its jurisdiction.

Use of Firearm
7. A police officer shall not discharge his or her firearm for the sole purpose of attempting to stop a fleeing motor vehicle.

Pursuit in Unmarked Police Motor Vehicle
8. A police officer in an unmarked police motor vehicle shall not engage in a suspect apprehension pursuit unless a marked police motor vehicle is not readily available and the police officer believes that it is necessary to immediately apprehend an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle or to identify the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle.

Stopping a Motor Vehicle
9. (1) During a suspect apprehension pursuit, a police officer shall consider the tactics for stopping a motor vehicle as set out in the written procedures of,

(a) the police force of the officer established under subsection 6 (1), if the officer is a member of an Ontario police force as defined in the Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009;

(b) a police force whose local commander was notified of the appointment of the officer under subsection 6 (1) of the Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009, if the officer was appointed under Part II of that Act; or

(c) the local police force of the local commander who appointed the officer under subsection 15 (1) of the Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009, if the officer was appointed under Part III of that Act.

(2) A police officer may intentionally cause a police motor vehicle to come into physical contact with a fleeing motor vehicle for the purposes of stopping it only if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that to do so is necessary to immediately protect against loss of life or serious bodily harm.

(3) In considering the action mentioned in subsection (2), a police officer shall assess the effect of the action on the safety of other members of the public and police officers.

(4) Despite subsection (2), a police officer may cause a police motor vehicle to come into physical contact with a fleeing motor vehicle for the purposes of pinning it if the fleeing motor vehicle has lost control or collided with an object and come to a stop and the driver of the motor vehicle continues to try to use it to flee.

(5) Nothing in subsection (2) precludes police officers involved in a pursuit, with assistance from other police officers in motor vehicles, from attempting to safely position the police motor vehicles in a manner to prevent the movement either
forward, backward or sideways of a fleeing motor vehicle.

(6) Every police force shall ensure that its police officers receive training about the intentional physical contact between motor vehicles that is described in subsection (2).

(7) The training must address the matters described in subsections (2) and (3).

Other Procedures
10. (1) Every police force shall establish written procedures on the management and control of suspect apprehension pursuits.

(2) The procedures must describe the responsibilities of police officers, dispatchers, communications supervisors and road supervisors.

(3) The procedures must describe the equipment that is available for implementing alternative tactics.

Supervision
11. (1) If more than one jurisdiction is involved in a suspect apprehension pursuit, the supervisor in the jurisdiction in which the pursuit begins has decision-making responsibility for the pursuit.

(2) The supervisor may hand over decision-making responsibility to a supervisor in another jurisdiction involved in the pursuit.

Application of Code of Conduct
12. A police officer does not breach the code of conduct when deciding not to initiate or choosing to discontinue a suspect apprehension pursuit because he or she has reason to believe that the risk to public safety that may result from the pursuit outweighs the risk to public safety that may result if an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle is not immediately apprehended or if the fleeing motor vehicle or an individual in the fleeing motor vehicle is not identified.

Training
13. Every police force shall ensure that its police officers, dispatchers, communications supervisors and road supervisors receive training accredited by the Solicitor General about suspect apprehension pursuits.

Records
14. (1) If a police officer engages in a suspect apprehension pursuit and the officer is a member of an Ontario police force as defined in the Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009, the police force of which the officer is a member shall ensure that the particulars of the pursuit are recorded on a form and in a manner approved by the Solicitor General.

(2) If a police officer engages in a suspect apprehension pursuit and the officer is appointed under the Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009, the officer shall report the particulars of the pursuit to the appointing official or local commander who appointed the officer under that Act and that person shall ensure that the particulars are recorded on a form and in a manner approved by the Solicitor General.

Revocation
15. Ontario Regulation 546/99 is revoked.

Commencement
16. This Regulation comes into force on the later of the day the Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009 comes into force and the day this Regulation is filed.

Update: August 30, 2010 – Police still searching for driver in fatal motorcycle accident.

Update: September 1, 2010 – Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit has identified Ms. Ioana Bocunescu as the passenger who fell off the motorcycle at approximately 11:40 p.m. on August 27, 2010 after it unexpectly accelerated and died as a result of the fall and being torn to shreds by vehicles travelling at 100 km/h on highway 401/Brock Street, in Whitby, last friday night.

Update: see previous posts – No Right Turns on Red Lights – Toronto Streets, T.T.C’s St. Clair West Subway Station’s “Bike Shelter”, Motorists Must Stay 3,4 or 5 Feet Away from Bicyclists, Toronto’s Zero-Tolerance Bicycle Blitz, Idaho Stop Law, Toronto Police Bicycle Safety Blitz, Bicycle Accidents Toronto, Reported in 2008, City of Toronto is Considering Installing “Rumble Strips” & page -Green Alternatives – Motorcycles, Mopeds and e-Bikes.

During a three (3) day blitz, between August 23 – 25, 2010 inclusive, Toronto Police were busy laying charges against cyclists and pedestrians. According to Police, during the weekend of August 21 & 22, 2010, 250 cyclists and pedestrians were provided with cautions with regard to a number of Highway Traffic Act offences, prior to the blitz. To date this year, there have been thirteen pedestrian fatalities and eight (8) of those fatalities involved jaywalking.

The three (3) day blitz took place at the usual locations within the 54 and 55 divisions of the Toronto police:
Intersection at Broadview Avenue and Danforth Avenue, O’Connor Drive, Victoria Avenue and other streets within these divisions.

See the Toronto Police News Release:

Results For 54–55 Divisions Bicycle And Pedestrian Enforcement Campaign

Highway Traffic Act Charges Laid:

Disobey Red Light and Stop Sign                 – 211 charges
No-Horn – Bicycle                               -  84 charges
Improper Bicycle Lighting                       -  32 charges
Pedestrian Fail to use Crosswalk                -  28 charges
Bicycle with 62cm wheels ride on sidewalk       -  27 charges
Pedestrian Disobey “Don’t Walk” Signal          -  12 charges
Pedestrian Disobey Red Light                    -   8 charges
Cyclist Fail to Stop for Police                 -   7 charges
Bicycle – Unable to keep Both Hands on Handle Bars- 1 charge

Update: See previous post – April 25, 2010 Disabled Parking Permits (Accessible Parking Permits)

In March 2008, the City of Toronto dramatically increased the amount of the fine for illegally parking in a Disabled Parking Zone from $150.00 to $450.00.

The parking enforcement officers provide tickets everyday to motor vehicles that park in Disabled Parking Zone, without a valid Disabled Parking Permit (in Toronto it is called an Accessible Parking Permit).

Apparently, the only motor vehicles that are allowed to park in Disabled Parking Zones, without an Accessible Parking Permit, are City of Toronto Parking Enforcement Officer Vehicles.

On August 24, 2010 at approximately 10 pm at a Tim Horton’s at 1214 Caledonia Road a Parking Enforcement Officer Vehicle was observed parking in a space designed for those with disabilities/special needs in a Disabled Parking Space. The Parking Enforcement Officers parked over the sign, in the disabled parking zone and walked into the Tim Horton’s and had a seat.

The parking spots next to the disabled parking spot were empty.

A woman, Ms. Melissa Goncalves, outside of the Tim Hortons noticed that this vehicle was parking in the disabled parking zone (reserved for those bearing an Accessible Parking Permit) and began to take pictures. It was only after the abled bodied enforcement officers sitting in the Timmy’s noticed that she was taking a particular interest in their choice of parking spot, that they quickly came out and drove away.

Ms. Concalves sent the picture and the story to CP24 (see picture) and CP24 followed up on the story.

When CP24 brought it to the attention of the Police, rather than acknowledging that the Police Services “Parking Enforcement” Officers displayed poor judgment and admonishing the act (disrespectful behaviour towards those who are disabled and towards the public for flaunting the law), Toronto Police Constable Wendy Drummond (spokesperson for the police) responded by saying that the parking enforcement vehicle was not parked in an “authorized” disabled spot, which requires clear markings on both the ground (indication on the ground painted) and a posted sign stating the bylaw.

Constable Drummond stated that without a posted sign (on the side of the Tim Horton’s wall, directly in front of the parking spot) and clear markings on the ground, the spot isn’t enforceable (so technically, anyone, including the parking enforcement officers can park there and cannot be ticketed).

If this sign wasn’t posted on the outside wall of the Tim Horton’s directly in front of the disabled parking spot, Constable Drummond says it isn’t a valid disabled parking spot (even if there are clear huge markings painted on the ground):

See Highway Traffic Act R.R.O. 1990, REGULATION 581 ACCESSIBLE PARKING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

10. A parking space designated by a sign under section 11 on land owned and occupied by the Crown may be used only by vehicles displaying a valid disabled person parking permit in accordance with this Regulation. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 581, s.10.

11. A parking space designated on Crown land or under a municipal by-law for the use of persons with a disability shall be distinctly indicated by erecting a disabled person parking permit sign which shall,

(a) be not less than forty-five centimetres in height and not less than thirty centimetres in width and bear the markings and have the dimensions as described and illustrated in the following Figure:

or,

(b) be not less than sixty centimetres in height and not less than thirty centimetres in width and bear the markings and have the dimensions as described and illustrated in the following Figure:

R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 581, s.11; O. Reg. 612/05, s. 5.

Both Toronto Police Officers and Parking Enforcement Officers work for the City of Toronto’s Toronto Police Services Board.

According to the law, neither of these Officers were disabled and should not have been parking there for their donut and coffee, especially when there were empty spaces on both sides of the cruiser.  The fact that they immediately came out when the photo’s were being taken, showed their presence of mind and the fact that they knew they should not have parked there. Ms. Drummond attempts to defend these actions and appears to condone this behaviour, without hinting for even a second, that the behaviour under scrutiny was disrespectful and wrong.  The optics in this case are terrible.

“Person with a Disability” means an individual:

(a) who cannot walk without the assistance of another individual or of a brace, cane, crutch, lower limb prosthetic device or similar assistive device or who requires the assistance of a wheelchair,

(b) who suffers from lung disease to such an extent that his or her forced expiratory volume in one second is less than one litre,

(c) for whom portable oxygen is a medical necessity,

(d) who suffers from cardiovascular disease to such an extent that the individual’s functional capacity is classified as Class III or Class IV according to Nomenclature and Criteria for Diagnosis of Diseases of the Heart and Great Vessels, ninth edition, published by Little, Brown & Co. in 1994,

(e) whose ability to walk is severely limited due to an arthritic, neurological, musculoskeletal or orthopaedic condition,

(f) whose visual acuity is 20/200 or poorer in the better eye, with corrective lenses if required, or whose maximum field of vision using both eyes has a diameter of 20 degrees or less, or

(g) whose mobility is severely limited by one or more conditions or functional impairments;

This isn’t the first time that this has happened, but at least in one of the first instances (in May 2008 at a Mississauga Tim Horton’s) this behaviour was taken alot more seriously by Peel Police.

According to a second spokeswoman for the Toronto Police, Isabelle Cotton, a parking space is not considered an official wheelchair-accessible spot unless there is a sign painted on the pavement, as well as one posted above the spot. In this case, there was only a sign on the ground, she said.

It appears that both Wendy & Isabelle, while stating that it’s not technically “illegal”, both miss the point. Both are attempting to be good spin doctors and to deflect attention away from the real issue – should they have parked there?

This is wrong and should be frowned upon by any decent citizen. There was no necessity of having to park there, no emergency, no rush, plenty of other parking spaces that were empty. They went in for a break, as many of us do – but not under these circumstances.

Why can’t the police just admit their wrong and get on with it, as opposed to telling us that it isn’t illegal and therefore it’s ok.

See the CP24 video.