Fight Your Tickets

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:

Red Light camera fines, in accordance with section 144 (18) of the Highway Traffic Act, will substantially increase in the Region of Peel in the new year (Friday, January 1, 2010).

The red light tickets, that upon conviction cost $180.00 total payable, will increase to $325.00 total payable.

The increase is in accordance to the Ontario Court of Justice and the Provincial Offences Act as it relates to Schedule 43 of the Highway Traffic Act.

Peel has red light cameras permanently installed in twenty four (24) intersections, sprinkled throughout Peel:

1. Dixie Road & Bovaird Drive
2. Dixie Road & Steeles Avenue
3. Goreway Drives & Steeles Avenue
4. Dixie Road & Derry Road
5. Hurontario Street & Derry Road
6. Dixie Road & Dundas Street
7. Airport Road & Williams Parkway
8. Erin Mills Parkway & Britannia Road
9. Derry Road & Mavis Road
10. Steeles Avenue & Rutherford Road/First Gulf Boulevard
11. Derry Road & Airport Road
12. Derry Road & Rexwood Road/Netherbrae Road
13. Dixie Road & Bloor Street
14. Steeles Avenue & Kennedy Road
15. Mississauga Road & Meadowvale Boulevard
16. Erin Mills Parkway & Folkway Drive
17. Kennedy Road & Vodden Street
18. Queen Street West & West Drive/Laurelcrest Street
19. Derry Road & Winston Churchill Boulevard
20. Erin Mills Parkway & Credit Valley Road
21. Derry Road & Tomken Road
22. Airport Road & Clark Boulevard
23. Steeles Avenue & Bramalea Road
24. Erin Mills Parkway & The Collegeway

Stay away from Derry Road (East & West), followed by Dixe Road and Airport Road, as they contain the largest numbers of red light cameras at the various intersections in Peel.

See News Release.

Update:

On December 22, 2009 the Supreme Court of Canada has released a very significant decision which affects all media news reporting companies and bloggers in Canada. The decision Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61 reviews the freedom of expression guarantee in s. 2 (b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Libel and Defamation Laws (and defamation defences) and the responsible communication defence, regarding a publication (written or online) that is on a matter of public interest.

The Toronto Star was subjected to a libel law suit initiated by Grant. The trial was presided over by Justice P. Rivard of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury. On February 5, 2007 Mr. Grant proved successful in his litigation. See the Superior Court of Justice (April 23, 2007)- Pre-Judgment Interest and Costs Endorsement – Decision.

The jury found the respondents (the “Star defendants”) liable and awarded general, aggravated and punitive damages totalling $1.475 million.

In response to this decision, the Toronto Star appealed the decision from the Superior Court of Justice (Ontario) to the Ontario Court of Appeal ( Grant v. Torstar Corporation, 2008 ONCA 796 (CanLII) ). On November 28, 2008 the Court of Appeal ( Rosenberg, Feldman, Simmons JJ.A.) came to the following conclusion:

“As the public interest responsible journalism defence is a question of law for the judge to decide, in some cases where there is an error by the trial judge in applying the test, the Court of Appeal will be able to apply the appropriate factors and substitute its decision for that of the trial judge. However, in this case, for the reasons I have discussed above including the need for the jury to decide the meaning of the impugned statements for the purpose of assessing the defence, as well as because other errors in the charge may well have affected the jury’s verdict, the proper remedy in this case is a new trial where all of the issues will be decided.

I would therefore allow the appeal, set aside the verdict and order a new trial. The costs of the first trial shall be in the discretion of the trial judge who hears the new trial. The costs of the appeal shall be to the appellants, fixed at $65,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.”

In response to this decision from the Court of Appeal, Grant sought leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada and ultimately received it and the Supreme Court heard the appeal, but dismissed it, outlining the new rules and ordering a new trial, given that the mistakes in the original trial conducted by Superior Court Justice, Justice P. Rivard and taken together, the errors set out amount to a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice and require a new trial pursuant to s. 134 (6) of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act.

Here is the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court of Canada’s Chief Justice, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin (writing on behalf of all the other Justices on the SCC – as it was unanimous):

[7] For the reasons that follow, I conclude that the common law should be modified to recognize a defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest.  In view of this new defence, as well as errors in the jury instruction on fair comment, a new trial should be ordered.

Here are some excerpts from the December 22, 2009 Unanimous Supreme Court of Canada decision:

(1)  The Current Law

[28] A plaintiff in a defamation action is required to prove three things to obtain  judgment and an award of damages: (1) that the impugned words were defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person; (2) that the words in fact referred to the plaintiff; and (3) that the words were published, meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.  If these elements are established on a balance of probabilities, falsity and damage are presumed, though this rule has been subject to strong criticism: see, e.g., R. A. Smolla, “Balancing Freedom of Expression and Protection of Reputation Under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, in D. Schneiderman, ed., Freedom of Expression and the Charter (1991), 272, at p. 282. (The only exception is that slander requires proof of special damages, unless the impugned words were slanderous per se:  R. E. Brown, The Law of Defamation in Canada (2nd ed. (loose-leaf)), vol. 3, at pp. 25-2 and 25-3.) The plaintiff is not required to show that the defendant intended to do harm, or even that the defendant was careless. The tort is thus one of strict liability.

[29] If the plaintiff proves the required elements, the onus then shifts to the defendant to advance a defence in order to escape liability.

[30] Both statements of opinion and statements of fact may attract the defence of privilege, depending on the occasion on which they were made. Some “occasions”, like Parliamentary and legal proceedings, are absolutely privileged.  Others, like reference letters or credit reports, enjoy “qualified” privilege, meaning that the privilege can be defeated by proof that the defendant acted with malice: see Horrocks v. Lowe, [1975] A.C. 135 (H.L.).  The defences of absolute and qualified privilege reflect the fact that “common convenience and welfare of society” sometimes requires untrammelled communications:  Toogood v. Spyring (1834), 1 C.M. & R. 181, 149 E. R. 1044, at p. 1050, per Parke B. The law acknowledges through recognition of privileged occasions that false and defamatory expression may sometimes contribute to desirable social ends.

[31] In addition to privilege, statements of opinion, a category which includes any “deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, judgment, remark or observation which is generally incapable of proof” (Ross v. New Brunswick Teachers’ Assn., 2001 NBCA 62,  201 D.L.R. (4th) 75, at para. 56, cited in WIC Radio, at para. 26), may attract the defence of fair comment. As reformulated in WIC Radio, at para. 28, a defendant claiming fair comment must satisfy the following test: (a) the comment must be on a matter of public interest; (b) the comment must be based on fact; (c) the comment, though it can include inferences of fact, must be recognisable as comment; (d) the comment must satisfy the following objective test: could any person honestly express that opinion on the proved facts?; and (e) even though the comment satisfies the objective test the defence can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was actuated by express malice. WIC Radio expanded the fair comment defence by changing the traditional requirement that the opinion be one that a “fair‑minded” person could honestly hold, to a requirement that it be one that “anyone could honestly have expressed” (paras. 49-51), which allows for robust debate. As Binnie J. put it, “[w]e live in a free country where people have as much right to express outrageous and ridiculous opinions as moderate ones” (para. 4).

[32] Where statements of fact are at issue, usually only two defences are available: the defence that the statement was substantially true (justification); and the defence that the statement was made in a protected context (privilege).  The issue in this case is whether the defences to actions for defamatory statements of fact should be expanded, as has been done for statements of opinion, in recognition of the importance of freedom of expression in a free society.

[33] To succeed on the defence of justification, a defendant must adduce evidence showing that the statement was substantially true.  This may be difficult to do.  A journalist who has checked sources and is satisfied that a statement is substantially true may nevertheless have difficulty proving this in court, perhaps years after the event. The practical result of the gap between responsible verification and the ability to prove truth in a court of law on some date far in the future, is that the defence of justification is often of little utility to journalists and those who publish their stories.

This was the state of the law before the Supreme Court of Canada made their decision in Grant v. Torstar Corp.

The Supreme Court went on to say:

[53] Freedom does not negate responsibility. It is vital that the media act responsibly in reporting facts on matters of public concern, holding themselves to the  highest journalistic standards.  But to insist on court-established certainty in reporting on matters of public interest may have the effect of preventing communication of facts which a reasonable person would accept as reliable and which are relevant and important to public debate.  The existing common law rules mean, in effect, that the publisher must be certain before publication that it can prove the statement to be true in a court of law, should a suit be filed.  Verification of the facts and reliability of the sources may lead a publisher to a reasonable certainty of their truth, but that is different from knowing that one will be able to prove their truth in a court of law, perhaps years later. This, in turn, may have a chilling effect on what is published.  Information that is reliable and in the public’s interest to know may never see the light of day.

The Supreme Court reviewed several other countries laws (Australia, New Zealand, Africa, United Kingdom, U.S), related to the issue at hand, and have decided to allow media (which would include bloggers) to advance a difference defence (responsible communication defence) in libel suits, which in effect updates Canada’s libel laws and helps eliminate “libel chill”.

The Toronto Star has avoided having to pay general, aggravated and punitive damages of $1.475 million (one of the largest libel amounts in Canada)  and can now look forward to a new trial, with a new libel defence available to its counsel.

Toronto Star’s background:

The Toronto Star’s history stems back to 1892 and was originally known as The Evening Star, followed by The Toronto Daily Star. In 1971, The Toronto Daily Star was re-named The Toronto Star and the newspaper moved (from 80 King Street West) to its current headquarters located at 1 Yonge Street, just north of the Queens Quay and south of Lakeshore Blvd. A year later, in September, 2002, the “The” was dropped from its title, changing it to today’s Toronto Star.

What media has to say about the ruling and issues related to it?

thestar.com: Supreme Court backs press in major libel ruling
Ottawa Citizen: Supreme Court establishes new libel defence
National Press: Supreme Court creates new libel defence
Canadian Press: Supreme Court creates new public interest libel defence for press and bloggers
CBC: New Libel Defence Allowed: Supreme Court
The Canadian National Newspaper Exopolitics Headlines: Canada’s Supreme Court establishes new libel defence
Macleans.ca: Supreme Court creates new public interest libel defence for press and bloggers

Update:

2010 will usher in dramatic fine increases and greater penalties for certain offences under the Highway Traffic Act. Effective Friday, January 1, 2010 the costs and penalties associated with some traffic infractions on Ontario’s highways and roads will dramatically increase.

Moving and Stopping for Emergency Vehicles: Driver’s of motor vehicles must get out of the way and move pull over to the right and stop when an emergency vehicle is approaching from either direction.

Following Fire Department Vehicles: Motor vehicles must stay back 150 metres (492 feet) from a Fire Department Vehicle, as it is illegal to follow a Fire Department Vehicle (or ambulance) responding to an alarm.

Both of these rules of road can be found in section 159 of the Highway Traffic Act.

If in the New Year, a motorist doesn’t move over and stop for an Emergency Vehicle or follows a Fire Department Vehicle, the current maximum penalty of Five Hundred ($ 500.00) dollars will have the increased penalties apply, upon conviction of the offence:

first offence: a maximum fine of Two Thousand ($2,000.00) dollars and;

an accumulation of three (3) demerit points and;

a potential two (2) year licence suspension.

Another conviction for the same offence(s):

a subsequent conviction for the same offences, within five (5) years could attract a maximum fine of
Four Thousand ($4,000.00) dollars and;

an accumulation of three (3) demerit points and;

a two-year driver’s licence suspension and;

a six (6) month jail term or

the exorbitant fine, the three (3) points, the two (2) year suspension and the six (6) month jail sentence combined.

The other Highway Traffic Act Offences which will have their penalties increase in the New Year, will be for the following traffic infractions:

Not wearing a seatbelt or ensuring a passenger under 16 is not properly secured within the vehicle:

Approximately one quarter of all drivers and passengers killed in motor vehicle collisions are not wearing a seatbelt. Failure to wear seatbelt or to ensure that a child, who is a passenger in the vehicle. under 16 years of age, is not properly secured or wearing a seatbelt will attract a new increased fine. See section 106 of the Highway Traffic Act:

Failure to wear a seat belt and failure to ensure passengers under 16 years of age are properly secured – the maximum fine will increase from Five Hundred ($500) to One Thousand ($1,000.00) dollars.

Failure to Stop at Red Lights:

The Provincial Government figures that drivers that fail to stop at a red light is the reason that 25 % of fatal collisions at municipal intersections with traffic signals occurs. See section 144 of the Highway Traffic Act:

The maximum fine will increase from Five Hundred ($ 500.00) to One Thousand ($ 1,000.00) dollars.

Fail to Remain at the Scene of a Collision/(Accident):

The Provincial Government made this change, relying on statistics that out of approximately 380,000 collisions in the year 2006, about one in seventeen (17) failed to remain at the scene of the collision. As a result, the government is increasing the maximum fine. See section 200 of the Highway Traffic Act:

The maximum fine will increase from Five Hundred ($ 500.00) to One Thousand ($ 1,000.00) dollars.

Careless Driving:

The law, in part,  states that driver’s operating motor vehicles carelessly on a highway without due care and attention will be charged with this serious offence of careless driving.  See section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act:

The fine will be increased from One Thousand ($ 1,000.00)  to Two Thousand ( $ 2,000.00) dollars.

“The more laws, the less justice.” Marcus Tullius Cicero

Update: December 10, 2009 – Ontario Government’s announcement.

Update: December 30, 2009 – Another point of view.