Mississauga: Parking Tickets Can No Longer Be Challenged In Court.

Update: see previous related posts – June 4, 2012 B.C: No More Court Dates Available To Fight Traffic Tickets, January 21, 2012 British Columbia (B.C.): Traffic Offences – Fines and Penalty Points, October 30, 2010 City of Vancouver’s New “By-law Notice Dispute Adjudication System” Used for Parking Tickets

British Columbia took steps years ago to begin to experiment with parking ticket courts.  Municipalities implemented pilot projects that took parking tickets out of the courts and into the hands of adjudicators. In Vancouver a motorist that receives a parking ticket can no longer challenge that ticket in court; instead, they only have an option to challenge their ticket through an Administrative Penalty System (APS) which includes a tribunal that includes an appeal over the parking ticket to a Screening Officer and a final appeal to the Hearing Officer (as an independent and impartial third party). Ontario’s cities Vaughan, Burlington, Oshawa and Brampton have all followed suit.

http://fightyourtickets.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2013-06-29_4479.jpg
The City of Mississauga motivated by additional revenue, decided in 2013 that they would move away from the traditional court system, where motorists challenged their parking tickets in the courts, to the Administrative Penalty System (APS). photo by fightyourtickets.ca

In Ontario, the cities of Vaughan, Burlington and Oshawa have all reported an increase in operating revenues once they eliminated the court system and as an alternative dispute system implemented an Administrative Penalty System (APS).

The City of Mississauga motivated by additional revenue, decided in 2013 that they would move away from the traditional court system, where motorists challenged their parking tickets in the courts, to the Administrative Penalty System (APS).

One of the highlights of this new system that the City of Mississauga considered, related to the Administrative Penalty System (APS),  is that it would eliminate future revenue loss from “writing off” tickets where trials were requested but not accommodated by allowing the City to control its own processes and resources ensuring that all hearing requests will be accommodated in a timely manner.

The City of Mississauga awarded the “Administrative Penalty System for Licensing and Parking Offences and Single Source Contract Award to ParkSmart Inc. for
Parking Enforcement and Administrative Penalty System Solution” for seven (7) years, ending in 2020 for the price of $1.2 million dollars. The ParkSmart Inc. included the APS system for the enforcement of licensing and parking offences.

The contract to ParkSmart Inc. included a supply of a Parking Enforcement and Administrative Penalty IT System Solution including hardware, software, accessories and related services was awarded to ParkSmart Incorporated.

People that receive licensing (by-law) tickets or parking tickets in Mississauga, will have to Request a review of the administrative penalty  by a Screening Officer. If the person who requested a review of administrative penalty isn’t satisfied with the decision of the Screening Officer, then that person can request a review of the Screening Officer’s decision with the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer will review the Screening Officer’s decision and make a decision in the matter. The decision of the Hearing Officer is final.

The new APS dispute system in the City of Mississauga:

  • Either the person receiving their ticket or their Authorized Representative can use this online service but not both.
  • The online screening request must be submitted within 15 days of the Penalty date.
  • You can use this same online service to check the status of your previously submitted online screening request by returning to this page and entering the Penalty Notice and Licence Plate number.
  • Failure to appear at time and date of screening will result in an affirmation of the Penalty and a Non-appearance Fee of $50.00, an MTO Search Fee of $10.00 and a Late Payment Fee of $25.00 will be applied. Non-payment of these amounts will result in the renewal of your vehicle permit being denied and you will be subject to an additional Plate Denial Fee of $20.00.

see source

example ticketThe City of Mississauga will be using a new process for the enforcement of most of the City’s parking by-law violations beginning June 2014.

An Administrative Penalty System (APS) is a new and more efficient way for municipalities to enforce parking and licensing by-laws. Penalty notices similar to a parking ticket will be issued by enforcement officers for by-law violations with the process administered by the City.

The Municipal Act, 2001 allows municipalities to use an Administrative Penalties System (APS) for by-law violations relating to parking and licensing. The owner of a motor vehicle can be charged with an administrative penalty if the motor vehicle is found parked, stopped or standing in contravention of a parking by-law that is under APS.

Administrative Penalties System (APS)

An APS is an objective, fair and efficient process where penalty notices are issued, managed and reviewed by Screening Officers. The decision of a Screening Officer can also be reviewed by a Hearing Officer as an independent and impartial third party.

For parking by-law violations the owner of the vehicle may be issued a penalty notice with the administrative penalty to be paid to the City. The City may also charge administrative fees including fees for late payments and failure to appear for screening and hearings.

The administrative penalty and fee amounts are set out in City of Mississauga By-law 0282-2013 being a By-law to establish a system of administrative penalties respecting the standing, stopping or parking of vehicles in the City of Mississauga.

Types of Penalty Notices

There are two types of penalty notices that the City issues:

  1. APS Computer version (click for example)
  2. APS Handwritten version (click for example)

Please Note: Tickets issued at Toronto Pearson International Airport and accessible parking offences will continue to be issued under the Provincial Offences Act (POA) and managed through the Provincial Offences Court. These POA tickets are called Parking Infraction Notices.

Administrative Penalties System Process

Penalty notices are issued by a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer for a violation of a designated parking by-law.

Penalty Notice Options

  1. Pay the penalty notice within 15 days: online, phone, mail, in person or at a selection of locations (Ontario Court of Justice – Provincial Offences Office, 950 Burnhamthorpe Road West, Mississauga or Civic Centre Cashiers 300 City Centre Drive, Mississauga).
  2. Request a review of the administrative penalty by a Screening Officer.
  3. If a person is not satisfied with the decision of the Screening Officer, they may request a review of the decision by a Hearing Officer. The decision of the Hearing Officer is final.

Screening and Hearing Officers

A person who receives a penalty notice may request a review of the administrative penalty by a Screening Officer.

Screening Officers are employed by the City and are appointed by City Council on the recommendation of the City Clerk and the City Solicitor.  To ensure impartial decision making City Council members and their relatives and persons indebted to the City (beyond property taxes) are not eligible for a Screening Officer appointment.  In addition Screening Officers are bound by the City’s Conflict of Interest Guidelines.

If a person is not satisfied with the decision of the Screening Officer they may request a review of the decision by a Hearing Officer. The decision of the Hearing Officer is final.

Hearing Officers are also appointed by City Council on the recommendation of the City Clerk and City Solicitor. Like the Screening Officer positions, City Council members and their relatives and persons indebted to the City are not eligible for appointment. In addition, employees of the City or not eligible for a Hearing Officer appointment. The Hearing Officers are also bound by the City’s Conflict of Interest Guidelines, the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act and the general common law principles of procedural fairness and natural justice. Hearing Officers are independent third parties who impartially conduct hearings in the public interest.

Failure to Respond to Penalty Notices

If a person fails to respond with either of the above options by the due date, the person will be deemed not to dispute the penalty  and may be required to pay additional administrative fees. If the administrative penalty and fees remain unpaid, a notice of default will be sent to the Ontario Registrar of Motor Vehicles which will deny the renewal of existing vehicle license permits, or the issuance of new permits.

Please Note: Tickets issued at Toronto Pearson International Airport and accessible parking offences will continue to be managed through the Provincial Offences Court.

Background:

The City of Mississauga will be using an Administrative Penalties System (APS) in 2014 to issue, manage and review penalty notices for most parking bylaw contraventions.


News Release December 11, 2013 City prepares for Parking Administrative Penalty System


Corporate Report August 27, 2013 Recruitment of Hearing Officers for Administrative Penalty System


News Release July 3, 2013 City of Mississauga to use Administrative Penalty System for parking and licensing offences


Corporate Report June 10, 2013 Administrative Penalty System for Licensing and Parking Offences and Single Source Contract award to ParkSmart Inc. for Parking Enforcement and Administrative Penalty System Solution (File Ref: F.A.49.171-13) Supplementary Report

California: To Open Facilities for Illegal Immigrants’ Driver’s Licenses

Update:

California Licence Plate. The California Department of Motor Vehicles is setting up new facilities to process driver’s license applications for illegal immigrants. Last year, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a bill, AB 60, which will allow illegal immigrants to obtain the documents beginning Jan. 1, 2015. The bill was signed along with a number of others laws seen as favorable to undocumented immigrants.
California Licence Plate. The California Department of Motor Vehicles is setting up new facilities to process driver’s license applications for illegal immigrants.
Last year, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a bill, AB 60, which will allow illegal immigrants to obtain the documents beginning Jan. 1, 2015.
The bill was signed along with a number of others laws seen as favorable to undocumented immigrants.

see source

The California Department of Motor Vehicles is setting up new facilities to process driver’s license applications for illegal immigrants.

Last year, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a bill, AB 60, which will allow illegal immigrants to obtain the documents beginning Jan. 1, 2015.

The bill was signed along with a number of others laws seen as favorable to undocumented immigrants.

As part of the driver’s license application process, immigrants will have to acknowledge that they are undocumented. But AB 60 protects applicants from criminal prosecution.

The measure will provide an avenue for the state’s three to four million undocumented immigrants to obtain licenses, which advocates have said are necessary in order for the immigrants to get to and from work. The law is expected to allow up to 1.4 million undocumented immigrants to obtain licenses.

To accommodate that expected influx of new drivers, the state’s DMV is setting up five facilities throughout California. The facilities will be opened in the areas of San Jose, the South Central Coast, Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego, DMV spokewoman Jessica Gonzalez told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“This is the stepping-stone to state level amnesty,” Jon Feere, legal policy analyst at the Center of Immigration Studies, told TheDCNF.

Feere noted that former governor Gray Davis was recalled in 2003 after signing into law a bill similar to AB 60.

“California is the state that gave us Ronald Reagan. Now it gives us illegal alien lawyers with law licenses and illegal alien drivers with driver’s licenses,” Feere said.

Despite the push, a majority of U.S. and California voters oppose providing undocumented immigrants with driver’s licenses.

According to a Rasmussen poll taken in the wake of the passage of AB 60, 68 percent of likely American voters oppose their state giving undocumented immigrants driver’s licenses.

A poll conducted by Zogby Analytics of likely California voters found that 59 percent agreed with the statement “State and local governments should adopt policies that discourage illegal immigrants from settling in California.”

And 53 percent of respondents to the poll said that they would support a ballot measure that limited driver’s licenses to legal U.S. residents only.

Feere also pushed back on the idea that the driver’s licenses are necessary in order to help immigrants travel to and from work.

“The advocates who argue that licenses are necessary to help illegal aliens to get to jobs are by definition condoning illegal employment practices,” said Feere, noting that federal law prohibits the hiring of illegal immigrants.

As for the new processing centers, Feere says that they’re an unnecessary cost.

“It’s another cost that California taxpayers are going to be paying for, simply because the federal government has not done its job on illegal immigration and because Sacramento is welcoming illegal immigrants into the state,” he said.

California’s DMV has not yet finalized their plans for the new facilities or for which documents the new applicants will have to provide.

“DMV is still in the process of deciding what documents will be acceptable,” the DMV’s Gonzalez told The DCNF.

Supreme Court of Canada – Unprecedented Ruling on Defence of Quebec’s Autonomy/Unanimity and On Itself.

Update:

The latest decision from the Supreme Court of Canada (above) is a slap in the face to Prime Minister Stephen Harper who made a decision in the fall of 2013 to appoint Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court, knowing that it would be appealed.  The decision:2014-03-21 Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, 2014 SCC 21 (CanLII)
The latest decision from the Supreme Court of Canada (above) is a slap in the face to Prime Minister Stephen Harper who made a decision in the fall of 2013 to appoint Marc Nadon (who wasn’t qualified to serve on the Supreme Court) to the Supreme Court, knowing that it would be appealed. The decision: 2014-03-21 Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, 2014 SCC 21 (CanLII)

This latest legal issue decided by the Supreme Court, which could easily be called Canada v. Stephen Harper, rapidly rose to the Supreme Court of Canada (in a matter of months) and was heard and decided by the court quickly.

All too often are Canadians finding themselves relying on the courts to uphold Canadians Constitutional (the “Charter“) rights that the Harper government is attempting to erode through their omnibus bills. At the same time, the same government attempts to handcuff the judges ability to dispense justice and exercise judicial discretion, depending on the type of case they are hearing (ie – mandatory sentencing).

It isn’t the Senate which is calling the Harper government on their laws (this is understandable given that the present Senate is controlled by Harper appointees – he is on record stating that he is opposed to appointments to the Senate; although since he took power nine (9) years ago, he has appointed 59 Senators, many of them who ran as Conservative candidates and lost) it is the courts.

The courts understand that they must defend themselves against any abuses directed at them. They must also uphold the Charter against any actions of any government that would either undermine or erode Canadian’s rights under that Charter.

The Harper government’s behaviour creates an environment where courts are working overtime to ensure that laws that have normally been passed in haste, do not tread on the Charter rights of Canadians or the discretion normally afforded to the courts.

This latest challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada is unprecendented. It forces the Court to rule on itself, and the legitimacy of a Harper appointee to the Supreme Court in 2013, Marc Nadon.

The Supreme Court of Canada Logo. Despite the fact that Quebec had put forward three (3) Judges who qualified and who were eligible to serve on the Supreme Court on behalf of Quebec, Harper ignored this advice and instead nominated Marc Nadon who reportedly had the conservative bent that Harper was looking for. The Supreme Court ruled that Nadon was not qualified or eligible under the law to serve on the Supreme Court. It is viewed by many that Harper attempted to circumvent the law and force his nominee, Nadon, onto the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of Canada Logo. Despite the fact that Quebec had put forward three (3) Judges who qualified and who were eligible to serve on the Supreme Court on behalf of Quebec, Harper ignored this advice and instead nominated Marc Nadon who reportedly had the conservative bent that Harper was looking for. The Supreme Court ruled that Nadon was not qualified or eligible under the law to serve on the Supreme Court. It is viewed by many that Harper attempted to circumvent the law and force his nominee, Nadon, onto the Supreme Court.

The question put to the courts, asks who may or may not be appointed to Quebec’s three (3) positions on the Court’s bench. Harper knew it was going to be a problem when he picked Marc Nadon and doubted his eligibility when he made the decision.

When Harper made the announcement of his latest appointment, Marc Nadon, on September 30, 2013 he knew there would be backlash and he decided that his decision was worth testing in the Supreme Court.  He even went as far as constructing a Bill, Bill C-4, Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2 ( Clauses 471 and 472 of Bill C-4 proposed to amend the Supreme Court Act by adding ss. 5.1 and 6.1.) introducing it in the House of Commons on October 22, 2013, less than a month after the appointment).

Clauses 471 & 472 of Bill C-4 were subsequently passed and received Royal Assent on December 12, 2013. Harper thought that the new s. 6.1 would make it abundantly clear that a former member of the Quebec bar was now eligible for appointment under s. 6 and that this would assist Harper, as this was Marc Nadon’s exact situation.

He introduced Bill C-4 because he knew his decision stood a good chance of being thrown out by the Supreme Court and decided to roll the dice. He rolled the dice, at the expense of Canadians and Quebeccers and he lost.

The Court’s answer to Harper’s decision was as follows:

“On the question of whether Parliament can enact legislation purporting to declare a binding interpretation of s. 6 and thereby permit the appointment of a former member of the bar to one of the Quebec positions on the Court, our view is that the answer is also no. The eligibility requirements set out in s. 6 relate to the composition of the Court and are, therefore, constitutionally protected. Under s. 41(d) of the Constitution Act, 1982, any amendment in relation to the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada may only be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province.”

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision found the Chief Justices defending the Supreme Court, defending Quebec and the processes and practices that defines it (stretching back to 1875), the autonomy of Canadian Provinces, the Constitution (the “Charter“) and provided guidance for any future government that would want to make any changes that may involve the Constitution.

Harper has repeatedly called for changes to the Senate, before/after he was elected and during the last nine years since he took power. He wanted elected Senators, as is done in the Province of Alberta, his base and the base of all federal conservatives. He wanted an elected senate, until he realized that he could appoint Conservatives to the senate, which he has now done on 59 separate occasions (including Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Wallin). He promised to overhaul the Senate, but took no action.

Now the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that if any future government (it won’t be Harper, as he has had nine years now and has done nothing) wants to change the Senate, which involves the Charter, the decision has to be confirmed by Parliment and the Provinces.

Marc Nadon with Conservative Minister of Justice Peter MacKay days after Harper announced Nadon's nomination as a Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. His appointment to the Supreme Court on October 3, followed by his swearing in as a Judge on October 7, 2013 has now been declared void ab initio by the Supreme Court on March 21, 2014.
Marc Nadon with Conservative Minister of Justice Peter MacKay days after Harper announced Nadon’s nomination as a Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. His appointment to the Supreme Court on October 3, followed by his swearing in as a Judge on October 7, 2013 has now been declared void ab initio by the Supreme Court on March 21, 2014.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision:

In the Matter of Section 53 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26;, et al.

Judgment on the appeal rendered, CJ LeB Abe Cro Mo Ka Wa, The Reference by the Governor in Council concerning ss. 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act was heard on January 15, 2014. The reference questions are answered as follows: (1) Can a person who was, at any time, an advocate of at least 10 years standing at the Barreau du Québec be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada as a member of the Supreme Court from Quebec pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act? Answer: No. Moldaver J., dissenting, would answer yes. (2) Can Parliament enact legislation that requires that a person be or has previously been a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years standing at the bar of a province as a condition of appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada or enact the annexed declaratory provisions as set out in clauses 471 and 472 of the Bill entitled Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2? Answer: With respect to the three seats reserved for Quebec on the Court, the answer is no. With respect to the declaratory provision set out in clause 472, the answer is no. With respect to clause 471, the answer is yes. Moldaver J., dissenting, would find it unnecessary to answer this question. Consequently, the appointment of Justice Nadon and his swearing-in as a judge of the Court were void ab initio. He remains a supernumerary judge of the Federal Court of Appeal. , Reference.

Section 53 of the Supreme Court Act

Referring certain questions for opinion
  •  (1) The Governor in Council may refer to the Court for hearing and consideration important questions of law or fact concerning

    (a) the interpretation of the Constitution Acts;

    (b) the constitutionality or interpretation of any federal or provincial legislation;

    (c) the appellate jurisdiction respecting educational matters, by the Constitution Act, 1867, or by any other Act or law vested in the Governor in Council; or

    (d) the powers of the Parliament of Canada, or of the legislatures of the provinces, or of the respective governments thereof, whether or not the particular power in question has been or is proposed to be exercised.

THE JUDGES

Marginal note: Constitution of Court
  •  (1) The Court shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada, and eight puisne judges.

  • Marginal note: Appointment of judges

    (2) The judges shall be appointed by the Governor in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.

  • R.S., c. S-19, s. 4.
Marginal note: Who may be appointed judges

 Any person may be appointed a judge who is or has been a judge of a superior court of a province or a barrister or advocate of at least ten years standing at the bar of a province.

  • R.S., c. S-19, s. 5.
Marginal note: For greater certainty

 For greater certainty, for the purpose of section 5, a person may be appointed a judge if, at any time, they were a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years standing at the bar of a province.

  • 2013, c. 40, s. 471.
Marginal note: Three judges from Quebec

 At least three of the judges shall be appointed from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec or from among the advocates of that Province.

  • R.S., c. S-19, s. 6;
  • 1974-75-76, c. 19, s. 2.
Marginal note:For greater certainty

 For greater certainty, for the purpose of section 6, a judge is from among the advocates of the Province of Quebec if, at any time, they were an advocate of at least 10 years standing at the bar of that Province.

California: The DMV Proposing Laws Related to Autonomous Vehicles (Self-Driving Vehicles) By End of 2014

Update:

"Look Ma, No Hands". Google Self-Driving Car. It is exactly this type of car that is forcing the DMV to wrestle with laws surrounding the operation of this type of vehicle in the future.
“Look Ma, No Hands”. Google Self-Driving Car. It is exactly this type of car that is forcing the DMV to wrestle with laws surrounding the operation of this type of vehicle in the future.

see source

LOS ANGELES, Calif. – California is trying to do something unusual in this age of rapidly evolving technology — get ahead of a big new development before it goes public.

By the end of the year, the Department of Motor Vehicles must write rules to regulate cars that rely on computers — not the owner — to do the driving.

That process began Tuesday, when the DMV held an initial public hearing in Sacramento to puzzle over how to regulate the vehicles that haven’t been fully developed yet.

Among the complex questions officials sought to unravel:

How will the state know the cars are safe?

Does a driver even need to be behind the wheel?

Can manufacturers mine data from onboard computers to make product pitches based on where the car goes or set insurance rates based on how it is driven?

Do owners get docked points on their license if they send a car to park itself and it slams into another vehicle?

Google's Self-Driving Automated Car.
Google’s Self-Driving Automated Car.

Once the stuff of science fiction, driverless cars could be commercially available by decade’s end. Under a California law passed in 2012, the DMV must decide by the end of this year how to integrate the cars — often called autonomous vehicles — onto public roads.

That means the regulation’s writers will post draft language regulations around June, then alter the rules in response to public comment by fall in order to get them finalized by the end of 2014.

Three other states have passed driverless car laws, but those rules mostly focus on testing. California has mandated rules on testing and public operation, and the DMV expects within weeks to finalize regulations dictating what companies must do to test the technology on public roads.

Those rules came after Google Inc. had already sent its fleet of Toyota Priuses and Lexuses, fitted with an array of sensors including radar and lasers, hundreds of thousands of miles in California. Major automakers also have tested their own models.

Now, the DMV is scrambling to regulate the broader use of the cars. With the federal government apparently years away from developing regulations, California’s rules could effectively become the national standard.

Much of the initial discussion Tuesday focused on privacy concerns.

California’s law requires autonomous vehicles to log records of operation so the data can be used to reconstruct an accident.

But the cars “must not become another way to track us in our daily lives,” John M. Simpson of the non-profit Consumer Watchdog said at the hearing. Simpson called out Google, saying the Internet giant rebuffed attempts to add privacy guarantees when it pushed the 2012 legislation mandating rules on testing and public operation.

Seated across from Simpson at the hearing’s head tables was a representative from Google, who offered no comment on the data privacy issue.

Discussion also touched on how to know a car is safe, and whether an owner knows how to properly operate it.

Ron Medford, Google’s director of safety for its “self-driving car” project, suggested that manufacturers should be able to self-certify that their cars are safe. He cautioned that it would get complicated quickly if the state tried to assume that role.

In initial iterations, human drivers would be expected to take control in an instant if the computer systems fail. Unlike current technology — which can help park a car or keep it in its freeway lane — owners might eventually be able to read, daydream or even sleep while the car did the work.

Responding to a question received over Twitter, DMV attorney Brian Soublet acknowledged that the department is still grappling with the most fundamental question of whether a person will need to be in the driver’s seat.

Maybe not, by the time the technology is safe and reliable, he said.

Soublet asked who would ensure that owners know how to use the new technology. Should the onus be on dealers, manufacturers, owners?

Representatives of automakers suggested they shouldn’t be asked to guarantee the capability of owners. John Tillman of Mercedes-Benz said the DMV could test owners on basics such as starting and stopping the automated driving function.

Automaker representatives also expressed concerns that other states could pass regulations that were substantially different from California, creating the kind of patchwork rules that businesses hate.

States outside California have been in touch and are following California’s rule-making process closely, said Bernard Soriano, a deputy director at the DMV.

Other discussion centred on how vulnerable the cars could be to hackers, who might wrest control of the vehicles.

Industry representatives said that while that’s a concern, they would vigilantly guard against such vulnerability because it would be disastrous

Ontario: “First Responders Day” – May 1 In Each Year

Update:

Ambulances carry paramedics (first responders) to situations that often necessitate the stabilization of patients who are then quickly transported to the hospital.
Ambulances carry paramedics (first responders) to situations that often necessitate the stabilization of patients who are then quickly transported to the hospital.

see source

ORNGE Air Ambulance, containing paramedics, stabilize patients and then quickly transports them to hospitals.
ORNGE Air Ambulance, containing paramedics (first responders), stabilize patients and then quickly transports them to hospitals.
When someone telephones "911", EMS must respond, which includes police, fire and paramedics. All are first responders.
When someone telephones “911”, EMS must respond, which includes police, fire and paramedics. All are first responders.
The fire department with its' firefighters form an integral part of the EMS and as a first responder.
The fire department with its’ firefighters form an integral part of the EMS and as a first responder.

Bill 15 2013 – An Act to proclaim First Responders Day

Preamble

First responders are those men and women who, in the early stages of an emergency, are responsible for the protection and preservation of life, property, evidence and the environment. They include police officers, firefighters, military personnel, paramedics, medical evacuation pilots, dispatchers, nurses, doctors, emergency medical technicians and emergency managers.

First responders are volunteers and professionals who have dedicated their lives to public service. Their life-saving skills often make the difference between life and death. Their public service deserves to be recognized and honoured.

Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

First Responders Day

1. May 1 in each year is proclaimed as First Responders Day.

Commencement

2. This Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent.

Short title

3. The short title of this Act is the First Responders Day Act, 2013.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

This Explanatory Note was written as a reader’s aid to Bill 15 and does not form part of the law. Bill 15 has been enacted as Chapter 11 of the Statutes of Ontario, 2013.

The Bill proclaims May 1 in each year as First Responders Day.