Update:

Forty-five (45) minutes north of Toronto, Ontario and Ten (10) minutes south of Barrie, in the community of Innisfil, near the shores of Lake Simcoe is a retirement community, called “Sandycove Acres”.

One of the residents of Sandycove Acres is 73 year old, Mr. Bruce Newton.  He must have been a very careful driver as he had not received a traffic ticket in almost thirty (30) years.

The fact that he hadn’t received a traffic ticket in almost thirty (30) years isn’t the story. The real story is that he had driven for thirty (30) years without a valid driver’s licence (since 1980).

In Ontario, there are fifteen (15) different licence classes. The problem is, that Mr. Newton (who admits that in 1980 he didn’t have the money to pay for the licence renewal, so he let it lapse) didn’t have any driver’s licence.

It wasn’t until he chose to drive to visit his daughter in Penetanguishene on May 22, 2010 that the thirty (30) driving spree would end, after he was pulled over by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and asked questions in relation to a minor traffic infraction. It was during that investigation that the OPP realized that Mr. Newton had been operating a motor vehicle without a valid Ontario driver’s licence.

Mr. Newton, who had previously worked in the insurance industry, said his insurance company never asked about his licence when he renewed his auto insurance year after year after year after year.

Mr. Newton was charged by the OPP with driving without a licence pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act. Mr. Newton is scheduled to appear in Provincial Offences Court in Penetanguishene, Ontario on August 19, 2010.

Update:

On Wednesday, June 9, 2010 City Councillors of the City of Edmonton voted in favour (Ward 6 City Councillor Dave Thiele was the only councillor present who opposed this new by-law) of a noise by-law that would allow police (armed with sound meters) to issue tickets with a $250.00 fine to the operators of motorcycles, whose motorcycle is generating sound louder than 92 decibels (while idling) or 96 decibels when the motorcycle is not in idle mode.

Mr. Dave Thiele (Ward 6), the only city councillor to vote against the noise bylaw, argued the measure is “illogical and discriminatory.” He pointed out Edmonton has approximately 13,000 registered motorcycles, while hundreds of thousands of cars are on the road. Mr. Thiele believes that if an excessive noise bylaw is to target anyone, it should be applied equally to all motor vehicles, as opposed to discriminating against motorcycles only.

See a Decibel (Loudness) Comparison Chart. This chart will give you an idea of how much sound is being emitted at 92 or 96 decibels.

The amendment to the Community Standards Bylaw 14600 is viewed as an effective enforcement tool to deal with excessively loud motorcycles. The bylaw amendment broadens the current measuring standards for sound level meter testing and establishes the offence that no person shall operate a motorcycle that is capable of emitting sound exceeding 92 decibels while at idle, or 96 decibels while the engine speed is greater than idle.  The bylaw amendment carries a fine of $250.

In anticipation of this Bylaw Amendment, Edmonton Police have purchased eight (8) noise meter kits, at a cost of $3000.00 per kit. Police would use these noise meters to measure sound emitted from motorcycle exhaust mufflers, as measured at 50 centimetres (or 19.6850393700787 inches or 1.64 feet) from the exhaust outlet.

The Edmonton Police Services will charge violators at three (3) benchmark noise levels:
1. Violators in excess of 92 db(A) at idle for all motorcycles; or
2. Violators in excess of 96 db(A) at 2000 rpm for motorcycles having less than 3 cylinders; or more than 4 cylinders; and/or
3. Violators in excess of 100 db(A) at 5000 rpm for motorcycles with 3 or 4 cylinders

It was moved/seconded and carried that Bylaw 15442 be read a first time, second time and a third time. After the third reading was completed and the motion carred, which gave life to this new by-law;  Ward 6 Councillor Dave Thiele moved the following motion and Ward 6 Councillor Amarjeet Sohi seconded the motion:

Motor Vehicles Noise Control

That Administration (Planning & Development), in cooperation with the Edmonton Police Commission, provide a report (due by September 15, 2010) to Council outlining:

* a mechanism to control excessive noise of motor vehicles

* time frames to implement proper testing for noise level violations of all motor vehicles

* steps required to amend the Community Standards Bylaw to provide Edmonton Police Service with more tools for enforcement of noise level violations of all motor vehicles.

This motion was passed by the majority of the City Councillors present at the meeting.

This means that City Councillors are looking at expanding the scope of the proposed bylaw to capture “motor vehicles” in the excessive noise bylaw, versus only “motorcycles”.

What Bylaw 14600 looked like, before the June 9, 2010 amendment:

City of Edmonton

Bylaw 14600

Community Standards Bylaw

(consolidated on February 13, 2008)

Part III – Noise Control

definitions

1)           In this Part: i)          “dB(A)” means the sound pressure measured in decibels using the “A” weighted scale of a sound level meter set to fast response; ii)         “decibel” means a unit for expressing the relative intensity of sounds on a scale from zero for the average least perceptible sound to approximately 130 for the average pain level; iii)         “holiday” means January 1st, Alberta Family Day, Good Friday, Victoria Day, July 1st, the first Monday in August, Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day, November 11th, and December 25th of every year; iv)        “noise” means any sound that is reasonably likely to disturb the peace of others; v)         “sound level meter” means a device used to measure sound pressure which meets the International Electro-Technical Commission Standard No. 123 or the British Standard No. 3539 Part l, or the U.S.A. Standard S1.4-1961.

prohibited noise

1)      a)  A person shall not cause or permit any noise that disturbs the peace of another individual. b)  A person shall not cause or permit property they own or occupy to be used so that noise from the property disturbs the peace of any other individual. c)  A person may be found guilty of a contravention of this section whether or not the decibel level: i)          is measured; or ii)         if measured, exceeds any limit prescribed by this bylaw.

criteria

2)           In determining if a sound is reasonably likely to disturb the peace of others the following criteria may be considered: i)          type, volume, and duration of the sound; ii)         time of day and day of week; iii)         nature and use of the surrounding area; iv)        decibel level, if measured; and v)         any other relevant factor.

DAYTIME DECIBEL LIMIT – RESIDENTIAL	1)      a)  A person shall not cause or permit any sound exceeding 65 dB(A), as measured at the property line of a property zoned for residential use, between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. b)  A person shall not cause or permit property they own or occupy to be used so that any sound coming from the property exceeds 65 dB(A), as measured at the property line of a property zoned for residential use, between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. c)  This section does not apply to sounds up to: i)          70 dB(A) lasting a total period of time not exceeding two hours in any one day; ii)         75 dB(A) lasting a total period of time not exceeding one hour in any one day; iii)         80 dB(A) lasting a total period of time not exceeding 30 minutes in any one day; or iv)        85 dB(A) lasting a total period of time not exceeding 15 minutes in any one day.
OVERNIGHT DECIBEL LEVEL – RESIDENTIAL	2)      a)  A person shall not cause or permit any sound exceeding 50 dB(A), as measured at the property line of a property zoned for use as residential, before 7 a.m. or after 10 p.m. b)  A person shall not cause or permit property they own or occupy to be used so that any sound coming from the property exceeds 50 dB(A), as measured at the property line of a property zoned for use as residential, before 7 a.m. or after 10 p.m.
DAYTIME DECIBEL LIMIT – NON-RESIDENTIAL	3)      a)  A person shall not cause or permit any sound exceeding 75 dB(A), as measured at the property line of a property zoned for use other than residential, between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. b)  A person shall not cause or permit property they own or occupy to be used so that any sound coming from the property exceeds 75 dB(A), as measured at the property line of a property zoned for use other than residential between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. c)  This section does not apply to sounds up to: i)          80 dB(A) lasting for a total period of time not exceeding two hours in any one day; or ii)         85 dB(A) lasting for a total period of time not exceeding one hour in any one day.

OVERNIGHT DECIBEL LEVEL – NON-RESIDENTIAL

4)      a)  A person shall not cause or permit any sound exceeding 60 dB(A), as measured at the property line of a property zoned for use other than residential, before 7 a.m. or after 10 p.m. b)  A person shall not cause or permit property they own or occupy to be used so that any sound coming from the property exceeds 60 dB(A), as measured at the property line of a property zoned for use other than residential, before 7 a.m. or after 10 p.m

motor vehicles

5)      a)  If a motor vehicle is the cause of any sound that contravenes a provision of this bylaw the owner of that motor vehicle is liable for the contravention. b)  Subsection (1) does not apply if the owner, on a balance of probabilities, satisfies the court that, at the time the motor vehicle was involved in the contravention, the owner was not present in the motor vehicle and no other person was operating the motor vehicle with the owner’s express or implied consent.

After the June 9, 2010 Edmonton City Council meeting, this is the amendment to Bylaw 14600:

THE CITY OF EDMONTON

BYLAW 15442

COMMUNITY STANDARDS BYLAW AMENDMENT NO. 2

Edmonton City Council enacts:
1. Bylaw 14600, the Community Standards Bylaw, is amended by this bylaw.
2. Section 13 is amended by adding after clause (c):
(c.1) “motor cycle” has the same meaning as in the Traffic Safety Act, as amended;
3. Section 13 is amended by deleting clause (e) and inserting:
(e) “sound level meter” means a device used to measure sound pressure which meets the American National Standards Institute S1.4-1983(R 2006), or the International Electro-Technical Standard No.123, or the British Standard no. 3539 Part 1 or the U.S.A Standard S1.4-1961
4. Part III is amended by adding after section 18:
18.1 A person shall not operate a motor cycle that is capable of:
a) emitting any sound exceeding 92 db(A), as measured at 50 centimetres from the exhaust outlet, while the engine is at idle; or
b) emitting any sound exceeding 96 db(A), as measured at 50 centimetres from the exhaust outlet, while the engine is at any speed greater than idle.

On April 29, 2010 Edmonton Police Chief Mike Boyd signed off the following report presented to Edmonton’s Police Services Board:

The Edmonton Police Services will charge violators at three (3) benchmark noise levels:
1. Violators in excess of 92 db(A) at idle for all motorcycles; or
2. Violators in excess of 96 db(A) at 2000 rpm for motorcycles having less than 3 cylinders; or more than 4 cylinders; and/or
3. Violators in excess of 100 db(A) at 5000 rpm for motorcycles with 3 or 4 cylinders

Policy is being developed to govern enforcement procedures and standards.

Total cost of equipment will be approximately $24,000.00 to equip the Service with eight (8) noise meter kits.

A public awareness and education program will cost approximately $15,000.00.

The 2010 Excessive Noise Program will commence May 1, 2010 enhanced with the new bylaw as soon as it is enacted.

This is the information that was reviewed by City of Edmonton City Councillors prior to June 9, 2010′s vote on changing the noise bylaw to restrict motorcycles within the City limits:

Bylaw 15442
To Amend the Community
Standards Bylaw 14600

Readings
Bylaw 15442 is ready for three readings. This Bylaw is authorized under the Municipal Government Act. A majority
vote of City Council on all three readings is required for passage.
If Council wishes to give three readings during a single meeting, then prior to moving third reading, Council must
unanimously agree “That Bylaw 15442 be considered for third reading.”

Previous Council/Committee Action
At the March 1, 2010, Community Services Committee meeting, the following motion was passed:

That Administration provide a report outlining:
• a review of provincial legislation and relevant municipal bylaws to ensure aftermarket excessive noise alterations can beregulated and are enforceable.

• the steps required to amend the Community Standards Bylaw to allow the Edmonton Police Service more tools for enforcing violations of excessive noise.

Report

• In 2008, Administration provided an information report to Committee on the current state of federal, provincial and municipal noise regulations. A 2010 review found no significant change or improvement to the regulation foraftermarket excessive noise alteration. (See Attachment 3.) With no recent legislative enhancements or new tools forenforcement purposes, the next step is for Council to consider this report’s proposed amendment to the Community Standards Bylaw.

• While the motion did not request a bylaw amendment, the protocol enforcement work already completed by the Edmonton Police Service and start of the summer cruising season supported the amendment coming forward at this time.

• Vehicles equipped with aftermarket systems that do not conform to the laws are major contributors to the problem ofexcessive noise. Excessive vehicle noise on city roadways is identified as a community disorder issue. Complaints ofthis nature centre on noncommercial vehicles, in particular aftermarket motorcycle exhaust systems. The offendingequipment tends to be straight pipes and drag pipes on cruiser type bikes, unbaffled systems on chopper style bikes, or racing or performance pipes on sport bikes.• The Edmonton Police Service has responded to this issue with both short and long-term action plans. Short-term plans saw stepped up enforcement in 2009, but existing provincial legislation was found to be inadequate to effectively deal with excessive noise. The long-term plan was to work with Alberta Transportation to develop legislation to identify acceptable noise levels from vehicles and a method of measuring those levels.

• Alberta Transportation reports that it is leading a national working group of government, law enforcement and industry representatives developing ways to effectively and fairly enforce excessive motorcycle noise. When the national group finishes its work, the Province will start the policy change process.

• Unfortunately, there is still significant work to be done to define the standards and testing protocols for dynamic vehicle noise testing by the working group. Once the noise testing standards are developed and provincial policy completed, there will be an extensive public consultation process required, among other factors.

• Although the development process has started, it will be some time before new provincial legislation is proclaimed and enforcement rolled out. As a consequence, a bylaw contingency plan was developed to fill the gap.

• The proposed amendment to the Community Standards Bylaw 14600 is viewed as an effective enforcement tool to deal with excessively loud motorcycles. The bylaw amendment broadens the current measuring standards for sound level meter testing and establishes the offence that no person shall operate a motorcycle that is capable of emitting sound exceeding 92 decibels while at idle, or 96 decibels while the engine speed is greater than idle. The proposed bylaw amendment carries a fine of $250.

• The identified equipment and decibel levels are consistent with the proposed standards developed by the Society of
Automotive Engineers called the ‘SAE J2825’. The SAE J2825 has been proposed as the standard for any national,
provincial or municipal legislation to deal with excessive motorcycle noise in Canada through the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators and the Motorcycle and Moped Industry Council of Canada.

• Edmonton Police Service indicate they are in the process of developing the necessary policy to govern enforcement
procedures and standards. If the Community Standards Bylaw is amended by Council, a public awareness and education program will follow.

• Corporate Services Department, Law Branch, worked with police service representatives to draft the proposed bylaw amendment.

• On May 20, 2010, the Edmonton Police Commission approved the recommendation to request City Council amend the Community Standards Bylaw.

Budget/Financial Implications
• Costs associated with the purchase of noise meter equipment and the implementation of a public awareness and education campaign will be accommodated under existing Edmonton Police Service budget.

There are at least 13,000 Edmontonians that should not be happy with this new bylaw. At least one Edmontonian, Ms. Liane Langlois (who works for a small IT company and rides a Triumph Speedmaster) plans on opposing this recent bylaw aimed at motorcycle enthusiasts. She is organizing a petition and she will have to sign up 10% of Edmonton’s population in order for it to be legally binding — roughly 79,000 people.

“I’m supposed to trust these people to make the best decisions when they’re clearly advocating for police to discriminate and harass against motorcycle riders?” she said. “I’m looking to get the bylaw repealed. For me, [the bylaw] has got to be all-encompassing or nothing.

Edmonton is the first city to pass this type of bylaw and as a result, other municipalities that want to pass similar or identical legislation (Vancouver to Winnipeg, Regina and all the way to the Maritimes) are watching what happens with regard to Edmonton’s latest bylaw amendment.

See the following articles Edmonton Journal, Calgary Herald, Dose.ca

One can’t help wonder if the reason that almost all the Edmonton City Councillors (A. Sohi, B. Anderson, B. Henderson, D. Iveson, E. Gibbons, J. Batty, K. Krushell, K. Leibovici, L. Sloan, R. Hayter, T. Caterina) jumped so quickly on the bandwagon and passed this bylaw (this bylaw passed by a vote of 11 to 1) is related to the following upcoming event in October, 2010:

Edmonton Elections

Election Day

The City of Edmonton conducts elections every three years, on the third Monday in October, between the hours of 9am and 8pm. The next municipal and school trustee elections are being held on Monday, October 18, 2010.

Update: See previous posts Nov.17/09- Idling Laws to become more Restrictive,, Nov.20/09-Drive-Thru’s to Fall Next in Anti-Idling War, April 26/10-Idling Law to be Reduced to 60 Seconds per Hour, May 2/10-Idling By-Law – 60 Seconds per Hour

The City of Toronto has finally voted in this month’s council meeting to reduce the allowable idling time for motor vehicles, from three (3) minutes down to 60 seconds or one (1) minute.

The City has yet to inform the public when this recently amended by-law ( Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 517, Idling of Vehicles and Boats ) will come into effect and be enforced.

When the Idling Law allowed three (3) minutes of idling (before it was reduced to 1 minute) in:
2009 – 88 tickets were issued to motor vehicle operators for idling their vehicles; and in
2008 – 70 tickets were issued to motor vehicle operators for idling their vehicles; and in
2007 – 50 tickets were issued to motor vehicle operators for idlingl their vehicles.

The City Council voted 24-13 to reduce motor vehicle idling time down to one (1) minute from the former three (3) minutes.

In addition to lowering the idling time down to sixty seconds,  before an operator of a motor vehicle can be issued a ticket with a fine for one hundred and twenty five ($125.00) dollars, the City Councillors eliminated some exemptions:

1. The exemption that allowed vehicles to idle (to keep the heater or air conditioner running) in the extreme cold (less than 5 degrees Celsius) or the extreme heat (in excess of 27 degrees Celsius) has been scrapped.

2. The exemptions for T.T.C vehicles has been scrapped and these vehicles can no longer idle for more than a minute.

The T.T.C has responded stating that they cannot comply with the one (1) minute idling law.

The next stage in this process is to outlaw “drive throughs” due to the idling of motor vehicles that line up for their coffees, food or banking services.

Update: see the previous post Toronto wants to Rake in Millions from Motorists

A number of tickets were cancelled in 2008 & 2009 due to the fact that the driver of the motor vehicle drove away before the parking tag could be completed and affixed to the windshield of the motor vehicle. These drive away tags cannot be mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle and are therefore cancelled and written off.  The City of Toronto has lobbied the Provincial government in the past to make the necessary amendments to the legislation, but the changes didn’t take place.

On January 27, 2010 the City of Toronto’s Auditor General wrote to the Audit Committee of the City of Toronto. The Auditor General recommended the following:

Update:

See story in the Star

See the Ontario Superior Court decision, Inga Richardson  v.  Joey Sanayhie, 2010 ONSC 3000 which was released on May 26, 2010.

In November, 2007 Inga Richardson and her common-law spouse, Joey Sanayhie were invited to a house party. Ms. Richardson planned on drinking at the party and Mr. Sanayhie agreed to be her “designated driver”.

Once at the party, Ms. Richardson drank alot of alchohol and became intoxicated.  As promised, Mr. Sanayhie, as the “designated driver” drove Ms. Richardson home. As this couple were being driven by Mr. Sanayhie, they began to argue.

As the argument increased, Ms. Richardson threatened to jump out of the moving motor vehicle. In response to this threat from his spouse, Mr. Sanayhie continued to drive on the streets of Oshawa and did not slow down or stop the vehicle, which this couple travelled in.

Unfortunately, a drunken Ms. Richardson followed through on her threat and jumped from the moving car. Subsequent to the jump from the car, Ms. Richardson sustained catastrophic injuries to her body and suffered severe brain damage.

After the assessment of the damage that Ms. Richardson sustained; Ms. Richardson launched a civil law suit against her common-law spouse, Mr. Joey Sanayhie.

Ms. Richardson suggested, through her lawsuit, that Mr. Sanayhie had breached his numerous duties of care as the “designated driver”. The lawsuit suggests that Mr. Sanayhie, as the “designated driver” should have supervised her drinking at the house party and prevented her from jumping out of the car, during the ride home on the Oshawa street.

On May 17, 2010 the defendant, Mr. Sanayhie and his counsel, John J.Adair appeared in the Ontario Superior Court in front to Justice Edward Belobaba with a motion under rule 21.01(1)(a) to strike those paragraphs that allege that Mr. Sanayhie, as designated driver, was required to monitor and control Inga’s consumption of alcohol at the party and generally supervise her behaviour. In failing to do so, he breached a duty of care and was negligent.

After listening to the defendant’s motion, Justice Edward Belobaba wrote the following:

” The focus here is on that portion of the pleading that would impose on a designated driver, in the absence of any special agreement, a general duty to supervise and control the alcohol consumption of his passengers and generally ensure that every passenger gets home safely. The defendant says that there is no such duty in law and for good reason. The imposition of these additional duties to monitor and control the passenger’s alcohol consumption would discourage people from ever agreeing to be a designated driver. This would not be in the public interest. The defendant submits that the impugned paragraphs do not disclose a reasonable cause of action and should be struck.

I agree with the defendant. In my view, there is no chance that a sensible trier of fact would impose such duties on a designated driver. The impugned paragraphs are certain to fail. The motion to strike is granted.”

Justice Edward Belobaba also wrote:

” Joey did not invite Inga to subject herself to a risk that he created or controlled. There is no evidence that the relationship between Joey and Inga was one in which Joey exercised power and control over a vulnerable and dependent spouse or that Inga reasonably relied on Joey to supervise and control her alcohol intake whenever they went out to a party.”

” The fact that Joey and Inga were living together does not mean that Joey, as the designated driver, had a duty to monitor and curtail Inga’s consumption of alcohol. There is no evidence of any specific discussion or agreement wherein Joey promised to do so. Absent such agreement, Joey was under no obligation to monitor and limit Inga’s alcohol consumption.”

In addition to this portion of the suit being struck, counsel agreed, on consent, to an order also to go to striking paragraph 7 and that portion of paragraph 12 that refers to the Occupier’s Liability Act. Counsel agree that occupier’s liability is not a viable basis for the plaintiff’s claim.

This is an important victory, considering what the consequences may have been, for all “designated drivers” if Justice Edward Belobaba had ruled in Ms. Richardson’s favour.

Now a trial must take place to decide on the other issues raised by Ms. Richardson and her counsel in the lawsuit as to whether or not Mr. Sanayhie was negligent or somehow responsible for not driving slower or stopping once Ms. Richardson had threatened to jump from the car while it was in motion.

In relation to the continuation of this matter,  Justice Edward Belobaba wrote:

” The defendant does not seek to strike the paragraphs that allege that Joey was negligent in the operation of the motor vehicle. The paragraphs that allege negligence in not slowing down or coming to a stop once the threat to jump out was made by the intoxicated passenger remain intact.”