Canada: Cellphone Freedom Day

Update:

3-year cellphone Contracts with cellphone providers can be cancelled with 'limited' fees. The decision by the CRTC, now backed up by the courts will affect millions of Canadians.
3-year cellphone Contracts with cellphone providers can be cancelled with ‘limited’ fees. The decision by the CRTC, now backed up by the courts will affect about 2-4 million Canadians (mainly Bell, Rogers and Telus customers). Only customers with contracts signed between June 3 & Dec.2, 2013 inclusive, will pay cancellation fee.

see source

Everyone with a three-year wireless contract will be able to break their agreement as of Wednesday without the hefty cancellation fees often mandated by carriers thanks to new regulations.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s wireless code took effect on Dec. 2, 2013, but will apply to all wireless contracts signed as of June 3, 2013.

"Most customers on three-year contracts will not be required to pay cancellation fees," the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Howard Maker said in a statement. "And, if they do, the amount they will have to pay has been limited by the code."
“Most customers on three-year contracts will not be required to pay cancellation fees,” the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Howard Maker said in a statement. “And, if they do, the amount they will have to pay has been limited by the code.”

Canada’s wireless carriers attempted to prevent the code from applying to people with three-year wireless contracts that would not have expired by June 3. The carriers lost a Federal Court appeal in May when the court ruled that the CRTC can make the code applicable to those contracts even if it interferes with the rights of mobile carriers.

While all customers will be able to walk away from their three-year contracts as of Wednesday regardless of when they expire, some will still have to pay a small cancellation fee if they choose to do so.

“Most customers on three-year contracts will not be required to pay cancellation fees,” the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Howard Maker said in a statement. “And, if they do, the amount they will have to pay has been limited by the code.”

Contracts started before June 3, 2013

People with three-year contracts that have lasted more than two years can cancel their plans without paying any cancellation fees, according to CCTS. This applies to anyone who signed a three-year contract before June 3, 2013.

The wireless code mandates that carriers can’t charge cancellation fees after 24 months.

Contracts started June 3, 2013, to Dec. 2, 2013

However, not everyone has held their contract for more than two years.

People who started their contract between June 3 and Dec. 2, 2013, can cancel their contracts. But they will have to pay at most $50 to do so.

The carrier will calculate 10 per cent of “the minimum monthly charge for the remaining months of the contract,” according to CCTS.

Contracts started after June 3, 2013, with a device subsidy

Some individuals may have contracts that came with a device subsidy, meaning the carrier offered a cellphone at a reduced price and built payments into the contract to make up the difference.

Carriers are able to recover some of the remaining device costs from people who want to cancel their contracts that were signed between June 3 and Dec. 2, 2013.

The CCTS offers a formula for calculating that cancellation fee. Carriers will have to divide the original device subsidy amount by 24 months, which is the amount of time the code allows carriers to recoup a device subsidy. They will then multiply that number by the number of months the contract has already lasted, and then subtract it from the original device subsidy amount.

For example, a three-year contract started on Nov. 5, 2013 with a device subsidy of $240 cancelled on June 10 would cost the customer a $40 early cancellation fee.

Contracts started after Dec. 2, 2013

All wireless code protections already apply to people who entered into contracts after Dec. 2, 2013.

These protections, in addition to $0 early cancellation fees after two years, include allowing customers to:

  • Cancel a new contract and return the phone at no cost (provided customers stay within usage limits) within 15 days if they are unhappy with service.
  • Refuse changes to key contract terms and conditions, including services and prices, for the contract’s duration.
  • Get a plain language summary of services.
  • Cap excess data charges above plan limits at $50 a month.

There are some concerns these changes may raise the price of smartphones in the short term. With customers being able to walk away from three-year contracts after 24 months without a penalty, there will be little sense in offering longer-term deals.

New Ontario Road Laws Will Cost Ontarians Huge

Update:

The Wynn Liberal Government passed Bill 31, Transportation Statute Law Amendment Act (Making Ontario’s Roads Safer), 2015 Receives Royal Assent yesterday.  This means that driver's in Ontario will have the highest fines (as well as the highest cost for auto insurance) in the country.  This received royal assent yesterday and now becomes the laws of the Province.
The Wynn Liberal Government passed Bill 31, Transportation Statute Law Amendment Act (Making Ontario’s Roads Safer), 2015 Receives Royal Assent yesterday. This means that driver’s in Ontario will have the highest fines (as well as the highest cost for auto insurance) in the country.

see source

Check those rear-view mirrors: A new Ontario laws imposes hefty fines for hitting a passing cyclist with your car door.

Greg Pender/Saskatoon StarPhoenix Check those rear-view mirrors: A new Ontario law, imposes hefty fines for hitting a passing cyclist with your car door.

Drivers who text behind the wheel, who “door” passing cyclists or drive stoned will face much stiffer fines under a new Ontario law that increases fines for some offences up to $1,000.

The law passed third reading Tuesday morning and will soon be signed into law. Its distracted driving penalties are now some of the toughest in the world, but the bill also cracks down on how drivers interact with cyclists. It also allows cities to build more types of bike lanes and it imposes tough fines on cyclists who refuse to light up their rides.

Oh, and it’s now illegal to tow a skateboard behind a vehicle.

Here are 12 things you need to know about the bill — or face hefty fines for your ignorance:

Texting and driving is about to get a lot more expensive

Don’t be this guy — it could soon cost you more than that iPhone. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)

Don’t be this guy — it could soon cost you more than that iPhone. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)

Would you rather get a new iPhone or text while driving?

The bill would increase maximum distracted driving fines up to $1,000 and three demerit points. So put down the phone and focus on the road, or you could pay a hefty price.

Light up your bike

No lights means no nighttime visibility. That’s a ticket. (AP Photo/Victor R. Caivano, File)

No lights means no nighttime visibility. That’s a ticket. (AP Photo/Victor R. Caivano, File)

Cyclists who don’t have proper reflectors or required bicycle lights could face fines of up to $500. The bill would also permit the use of flashing red lights on bicycles.

No more school bus impostors 

If the bill passes, only school buses could be this colour of yellow, so some tacky muscle cars may need a paint job. (Associated Press)

If the bill passes, only school buses could be this colour of yellow, so some tacky muscle cars may need a paint job. (Associated Press)

The bill would also “clarify that only school buses can be painted chrome yellow.” One has to wonder what, exactly, necessitated that clarification.

Cycle safe

A full metre? Cyclists might feel like they have the whole road. (Photo by Ilia Yefimovich/Getty Images)

A full metre? Cyclists might feel like they have the whole road. (Photo by Ilia Yefimovich/Getty Images)

Cyclists annoyed by possible fines for forgetting or losing their bike lights should take heart in this: The bill would require all drivers to give cyclists a one-metre berth when passing at all times. Might be tough in downtown Toronto, but necessary.

Cycle more

It’s about to get a lot safer to go for country bike rides in Ontario. (Associated Press)

It’s about to get a lot safer to go for country bike rides in Ontario. (Associated Press)

The bill also increases ways to cycle or methods for cities to encourage more people to ride their bikes. It would allow cycling on paved shoulders of provincial highways, which is currently disallowed under the act. That would follow an earlier government pledge to pave more of those shoulders.

And the legislation would enable more cities to install contraflow lanes: bike lanes on one-way streets that run counter to vehicle traffic.

Drive sober

Tyler Anderson / National Post files

Tyler Anderson / National Post filesThe bill enacts the same penalties for stoned drivers as those who are drunk, including escalating license suspensions and mandated addictions counselling.

The bill would bring Ontario in line with other provinces and enact the same penalties for stoned drivers as those who are drunk, including escalating licence suspensions and mandated addictions counselling.

“Dooring” will cost you more than just repairs

Greg Pender / Postmedia News

Greg Pender / Postmedia NewsFearling collisions, many cyclists in the U.S. and Asia instead take to the sidewalk.

Getting clotheslined by a car door on your commute to work is no fun, but for many cyclists in cities it’s a too regular occurrence. It can also be deadly — and now the province will take it as seriously as distracted driving, increasing fines to a maximum of $1,000 and three demerit points.

Even bigger transport trucks on the 401

FRANCOIS MONIER / AFP / Getty Images

FRANCOIS MONIER / AFP / Getty ImagesTransport trucks could soon be even more intimidating.

Double-long transport trucks are about to get a little bigger: 2.5 metres longer to be exact. The backgrounder on the bill says the change would “accommodate new technologies required to meet air quality and greenhouse gas emissions standards, and include more comfortable sleeping areas for drivers.”

Towing the line

Tow trucks are about to get a lot busier when it starts snowing. The Ontario government wants to make things just a little safer for them. (National Post file photo)

Tow trucks are about to get a lot busier when it starts snowing. The Ontario government wants to make things just a little safer for them. (National Post file photo)

If passed, the bill would offer the same protections to tow-truck drivers as are afforded to emergency responders: when passing a tow-truck with flashing lights, drivers would be required to slow down and give a full lane’s berth when possible.

Allow more people to keep their licences as identification

Niranjan Shrestha / Associated Press

Niranjan Shrestha / Associated PressYou might say older Ontarians are the elephant in the ministry when talking ID laws. You could also say this was an excuse to put a baby elephant in the story.

Thousands of Ontarians struggle after a tough medical diagnosis. In some cases, it also means they lose their driving privileges (epilepsy, for example). Now, the government would allow those who’ve had their driver’s licence revoked for medical reasons to keep it as identification and in case they are allowed to drive again.

Crosswalk crackdown

Not all crosswalks are as colourful as those in Toronto’s gay village, but they should all be equally safe for pedestrians. (National Post file photo)

Not all crosswalks are as colourful as those in Toronto’s gay village, but they should all be equally safe for pedestrians. (National Post file photo)

Drivers who try to eke through crosswalks as soon as pedestrians are halfway through will have to wait a bit longer: the bill would require drivers wait until no one is in the crosswalk or face penalties.

No skateboarding behind cars

There will hopefully be fewer candidates for the annual Darwin awards after this law is inked by the lieutenant-governor: it bans skateboards from hitching a ride from a moving car. The law is already in place for bikes and toboggans, but the government needed to extend that to skateboards, inline skates and “any other type of conveyance” to catch all future, dim-witted adolescent acts.

Bill 31, Transportation Statute Law Amendment Act (Making Ontario’s Roads Safer), 2015 Receives Royal Assent

Update:

see source

Premier Kathleen Wynn has found that a majority government can pass a bill rather quickly and the Provincial government gave royal assent to a bill that was first introduced in Queen’s Park on October 21, 2014. Bill 31, Transportation Statute Law Amendment Act (Making Ontario’s Roads Safer), 2015 was passed today and becomes the law of Ontario.

The government will allow a grace period over the next few months, so that drivers, cyclists and pedestrians can adjust to the changes in the new legal landscape.

Bill 31, Transportation Statute Law Amendment Act (Making Ontario’s Roads Safer) legislation would make amendments to the Highway Traffic Act including:

Increase fines for distracted driving from the current range of $60 to $500 to a range of $300 to $1,000, assigning three (3) demerit points upon conviction, and escalating sanctions on convictions for novice drivers.
Increase fines for distracted driving from the current range of $60 to $500 to a range of $300 to $1,000, assigning three (3) demerit points upon conviction, and escalating sanctions on convictions for novice drivers.
  • Increase fines for distracted driving from the current range of $60 to $500 to a range of $300 to $1,000, assigning three (3) demerit points upon conviction, and escalating sanctions on convictions for novice drivers

 

Apply current alcohol-impaired sanctions to drivers who are drug impaired Introduce additional measures to address repeat offenders of alcohol impaired driving
Apply current alcohol-impaired sanctions to drivers who are drug impaired
Introduce additional measures to address repeat offenders of alcohol impaired driving. Roadside suspensions of 3,7, 30 and 90 days. Seven day impoundment of vehicle. Treatment or remedial education may be ordered. Ignition interlock condition can be applied. Repeat offenders will have to participate and complete education program, treatment and monitoring (paid for by the repeat offender).
  • Apply current alcohol-impaired sanctions to drivers who are drug impaired
  • Introduce additional measures to address repeat offenders of alcohol impaired driving

 

Require drivers to wait until pedestrians have completely crossed the road before proceeding at school crossings and pedestrian crossovers
Require drivers to wait until pedestrians have completely crossed the road (versus the current rule which state that the driver must only yield half the crossing) before proceeding at school crossings and pedestrian crossovers. Driver’s cannot overtake other driver’s at a crosswalk or school crossing.
  • Require drivers to wait until pedestrians have completely crossed the road before proceeding at school crossings and pedestrian crossovers
Driver's will have to slow down and move over for tow trucks engaged in their jobs at roadside when the tow truck engages their amber lights.
Driver’s will have to slow down and move over for tow trucks engaged in their jobs at roadside when the tow truck engages their amber lights.

 

Increase fines and demerits for drivers who 'door' cyclists, and require all drivers to maintain a minimum distance of one-metre when passing cyclists where possible.
Increase fines and demerits for drivers who ‘door’ cyclists, and require all drivers to maintain a minimum distance of one-metre when passing cyclists where possible. The fine for dooring a cyclist will increase from $60 to $500 to $300 to $1,000 upon conviction. The demerit points that a driver will receive will increase from two to three demerit points upon conviction.
  • Increase fines and demerits for drivers who ‘door’ cyclists, and require all drivers to maintain a minimum distance of one-metre when passing cyclists where possible
Driver's are required to keep a distance of one metre (approximately 3 feet) while passing cyclists where practical. The fines for cyclists will rise from $20 to $60 to $500 who do not have to the required bicycle lights and other reflective equipment on their bikes. Cyclists will now be able to use flashing red lights on their bikes. Cyclists will now be allowed to use paved shoulders on unrestricted highways.
Driver’s are required to keep a distance of one metre (approximately 3 feet) while passing cyclists where practical.
The fines for cyclists will rise from $20 to $60 to $500 who do not have to the required bicycle lights and other reflective equipment on their bikes.
Cyclists will now be able to use flashing red lights on their bikes.
Cyclists will now be allowed to use paved shoulders on unrestricted highways.
  • Help municipalities collect unpaid fines by expanding licence plate denial for drivers who do not pay certain Provincial Offences Act fines.
Allow a broader range of qualified medical professionals to identify and report medically unfit drivers and, clarify the types of medical conditions to be reported.
Allow a broader range of qualified medical professionals to identify and report medically unfit drivers and, clarify the types of medical conditions to be reported.
  • Allow a broader range of qualified medical professionals to identify and report medically unfit drivers and, clarify the types of medical conditions to be reported.

The new fines and measures will come into force over the coming months. The new legislation builds on action that the province has already taken to improve road safety, including making booster seats mandatory, ensuring every person wears a seatbelt, introducing the Graduated Licensing System for novice drivers, establishing stiffer penalties for aggressive driving and excess speeding, bringing in tougher impaired driving laws, and banning hand-held devices while driving.

Quick Facts

  • If current collision trends continue, fatalities from distracted driving may exceed those from drinking and driving by 2016.
  • According to recent statistics, over 45 per cent of drivers killed in Ontario were found to have drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol in their system.
  • Pedestrians represent about one in five motor vehicle-related fatalities on Ontario roads — 46 per cent of which occurred at intersections.

The short title of this Act is the Transportation Statute Law Amendment Act (Making Ontario’s Roads Safer), 2015:

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Bill amends the Highway 407 East Act, 2012 as follows:  to remove the requirement that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles give a person who has failed to pay a toll and related fees and interest a second notice that, at the next opportunity, a vehicle permit won’t be validated or issued to the person; to remove the requirement that the Minister of Transportation conduct an annual review, including public consultation, on the amount of the toll for the following year.

The Bill also amends the Highway Traffic Act in respect of various matters, as described below, and makes a consequential amendment to the Provincial Offences Act.

 

Impaired Driving — Alcohol

Amendments to section 41 of the Act provide that the suspension of a driver’s licence on conviction for various Criminal Code and other offences may be shortened or continued if the person participates or fails to participate in a conduct review program.

Subsection 41 (4.1), which provides for early reinstatement of a suspended driver’s licence if the driver participates in an ignition interlock program, and sections 41.1, 41.2 and 41.3 of the Act, which provide for assessments and remedial programs, including ignition interlock programs, are repealed. The current section 57 of the Act, which allows for the establishment of conduct review programs by regulation, is expanded to take their place.  Consequential amendments are made to other sections to refer to the programs under section 57, instead of those under sections 41.1 and 41.2.

Current section 55.1 of the Act provides for the long-term impoundment (45 days, 90 days or 180 days) of a motor vehicle if the driver’s licence is suspended for various convictions under the Criminal Code.  Section 55.1 is amended to provide for the same impoundment in the following additional circumstances: if the driver contravenes an ignition interlock condition imposed on his or her licence under a conduct review program for a prescribed reason; if the driver’s licence is suspended under a conduct review program for a prescribed reason.

Sections 48.1 and 48.2.1 of the Act are amended to require police officers to notify the Registrar of Motor Vehicles of any 24-hour administrative driver’s licence suspensions imposed on novice drivers and young drivers under those sections.

Sections 48, 48.1, 48.2.1 and 48.3 are amended to provide that for persons who hold out-of-province driver’s licences and who are found to be driving while impaired by alcohol, the privilege to drive in Ontario is suspended automatically, in the same way that the Ontario driver’s licences are suspended automatically under these sections, and not by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.  These sections are also amended so that the duties of a police officer are the same in each case; they now require the officer to notify the Registrar of the surrender of a person’s driver’s licence, as may be required by the Registrar, rather than as prescribed in the regulations, and to forward any other material or information to the Registrar as may be prescribed by the regulations.

 

Impaired Driving — Drugs or Drugs and Alcohol

Current sections 48 and 48.3 of the Act provide for administrative driver’s licence suspensions where a person is found to be driving a motor vehicle or operating a vessel with a blood alcohol concentration of over 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood or over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, or where a person fails or refuses to provide a sample, perform physical co-ordination tests or submit to an evaluation under section 254 of the Criminal Code. Under section 48 (the over .05 section), the licence is suspended for three days for a first suspension, seven days for a second suspension and 30 days for a third or subsequent suspension.   Under section 48.3 (the over .08 and failure to complete tests section), the licence is suspended for 90 days.

Two new sections, sections 48.0.1 and 48.3.1, are added to the Act to mirror sections 48 and 48.3 where a person is driving a motor vehicle or operating a vessel while impaired by a drug or by a combination of a drug and alcohol.  Under section 48.0.1, a person’s driver’s licence may be suspended for three, seven or 30 days where the person has performed physical co-ordination tests under the Criminal Code and performed or submitted to tests or examinations, if any, prescribed under the Highway Traffic Act and a police officer reasonably believes that the person’s ability to drive a motor vehicle or operate a vessel is impaired. Under section 48.3.1, a person’s driver’s licence may be suspended for 90 days where the person has submitted to an evaluation under the Criminal Code and performed or submitted to tests or examinations, if any, prescribed under the Highway Traffic Act and a police officer reasonably believes that the person’s ability to drive a motor vehicle or operate a vessel is impaired.

If, after a licence suspension is imposed under section 48.0.1, an evaluating officer (defined in the Criminal Code) conducts an evaluation of the person under section 254 of the Criminal Code, the suspension that was imposed under section 48.0.1 is continued or cancelled based on the evaluating officer’s determination as to whether the person is or was, when he or she was stopped by police, impaired by drugs or by a combination of drugs and alcohol.

Section 50.1 of the Act is amended to give persons whose licence is suspended for 90 days under new section 48.3.1 the same right of appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal that is currently provided for persons whose licence is suspended for 90 days under section 48.3:  in both cases, the Tribunal may set aside the suspension for mistaken identity or medical reasons.

 

Bicycling

Section 62 of the Act is amended to permit bicycles to carry a flashing red lamp on their rear; this may be in addition to or instead of the red light or reflector on their rear that is currently required.  Subsection 62 (18) of the Act, which imposes a $20 fine for contravening the requirements for lights and reflectors on bicycles, is repealed.

Section 144 of the Act is amended to allow for traffic control signals that are specific to bicyclists.  In locations where there are both bicycle traffic control signals and regular traffic control signals, bicyclists will be required to obey the bicycle traffic control signals.

Subsection 144 (29) of the Act is amended to remove the prohibition against riding or operating a bicycle along a crosswalk.

Section 148 of the Act is amended to require the driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle to maintain a distance of at least one metre, as nearly as practicable, between the vehicle and bicycle.

Current section 153 of the Act provides that vehicles and street cars must be driven only in one direction on one-way streets.  This is amended to allow for the designation of a bicycle lane on one-way streets that goes in the opposite direction.  A consequential amendment is made to subsection 147 (2) of the Act.

Section 156 of the Act is amended to permit bicycles to be ridden or operated on the paved shoulder of a highway that is divided into two separate roadways.

Inconsistent terminology is currently used throughout the Act to describe bicycling:  riding, riding on and operating are used in reference to bicycles (including power-assisted bicycles), and driving, in reference to a vehicle, also includes bicycling.  A number of provisions are amended so that they consistently use “ride or operate” in reference to a bicycle or, where the bicycle in the provision does not include a power-assisted bicycle, “ride”.  The usage of “drive” in reference to vehicles, which includes bicycles, is unchanged.

 

Pedestrian Safety

Sections 140 and 176 of the Act are amended to require drivers to remain stopped at a pedestrian crossover or school crossing until the person crossing the street and the school crossing guard are off the roadway.  The current Act allows drivers to proceed once the person crossing and the school crossing guard are no longer on the driver’s half of the roadway.

Other amendments to section 140 of the Act consolidate the duties of drivers and pedestrians at pedestrian crossovers:  drivers must stop before entering the crossover and not overtake another vehicle already stopped at the crossover; pedestrians (which includes persons in wheelchairs) must not enter a crossover and into the path of a vehicle or street car that is so close that the driver cannot stop.

In new subsection 140 (8), the Minister of Transportation is authorized to make regulations respecting pedestrian crossovers, including prescribing signs and markings.

 

Medical Reports

Sections 203 and 204 of the Act currently require doctors and optometrists to report to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles the name, address and clinical condition of every person 16 years old or older who, in the opinion of the doctor or optometrist, suffers from a condition that may make it dangerous for the person to drive.

Sections 203 and 204 are re-enacted.  Rather than imposing obligations on doctors and optometrists, the re-enacted provisions apply to persons to be prescribed by regulation.  The prescribed persons will be required to make a mandatory report if a person has or appears to have a prescribed medical condition, functional impairment or visual impairment.  In addition, a prescribed person may make a discretionary report if a person has a medical condition, functional impairment or visual impairment that the prescribed person believes may make it dangerous for the person to drive.

 

Vehicle Inspection Centre System

Current sections 88 to 100 of the Act, which deal with motor vehicle inspection stations and related matters, are repealed.  They are replaced with sections 100.2 to 100.8, which create a new vehicle inspection centre system.  Section 100.1 allows the Minister of Transportation to make transition regulations to facilitate the implementation of the vehicle inspection centre system.

Under new section 100.2, the Minister may establish a program for the inspection of vehicles and the issuance of certificates and stickers and other types of proof of inspection and may appoint a Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to administer the program.  The Minister may enter into agreements with service providers to assist in operating the program.  The Minister may also enter into agreements to authorize persons to operate vehicle inspection centres and to authorize service providers to enter into such agreements.

The Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards is given broad authority to issue directives governing certificates, inspection procedures and requirements and equipment and performance standards under section 100.7.  It is a deemed term and condition of every agreement to operate a vehicle inspection centre to comply with all applicable directives.

 

Miscellaneous

Current subsections 7 (10) to (12) of the Act address the refusal to validate or issue a permit where payment of a fine imposed on conviction of certain specified offences is in default.  These subsections are re-enacted to provide that a refusal to validate a permit only applies in respect of one permit held by the convicted person at any given time.  New subsection 7 (12.0.1) of the Act provides that if a person is in default of payment of a fine imposed for an offence described in subsection 46 (1) of the Act, no permit held by that person shall be validated and no permit shall be issued to that person until the fine is paid.  New clause 7 (24) (n.1) of the Act authorizes regulations to be made that provide for exemptions from the application of subsection 7 (12.0.1).  A consequential amendment is made to the Provincial Offences Act.

The penalties for contravening sections 78 and 78.1 of the Act, which prohibit display screens and hand-held devices, respectively, are increased to a fine of between $300 and $1,000.

Current section 85 of the Act requires that vehicles display a device affixed to them as evidence that the vehicle complies with inspection requirements and performance standards.  Section 85 is amended to require vehicles to display an annual inspection sticker and a semi-annual inspection sticker (if it is prescribed), or other prescribed proof of inspection instead.

Section 165 of the Act prohibits unsafe practices respecting opening the door of a motor vehicle. Currently, the general penalty in section 214 of the Act, which imposes a fine of between $60 and $500, applies to contraventions of this section.  The section is amended to provide that the penalty on conviction is a fine between $300 and $1,000.

Currently, subsection 109 (7.1) of the Act allows certain prescribed combinations of vehicles to have a maximum length of 25 metres.  This is amended to allow a maximum length of 27.5 metres.

Current subsection 151 (5) of the Act prohibits driving on the paved shoulder of any part of the King’s Highway except in accordance with section 151 and a regulation made under it.  This is amended to apply only to parts of the King’s Highway that are designated.

Clause 154 (1) (a) of the Act is re-enacted to provide that a vehicle not be driven from one lane to another lane or to the shoulder, or from the shoulder to a lane, unless the driver first ascertains that it can be done safely.

Current section 159 of the Act requires drivers to slow down and move into another lane when approaching a stopped emergency vehicle with its red or red and blue lights flashing.  Section 159 is amended to require drivers to do the same for a tow truck stopped with its amber lights flashing.

Sections 160 and 178 of the Act, which prohibit persons from attaching themselves to and being towed by a vehicle or street car on a highway while riding or operating various devices (bicycles, toboggans, roller skates, etc.), are amended to include skateboards, in-line skates and any other type of conveyance.

Section 175 of the Act is amended to provide, in new subsection (3.1), that a bus that is painted chrome yellow must also have all the other markings of a school bus.

The amendments to clauses 175 (15) (i) and 205.25 (f) of the Act authorize the service of offence notices outside Ontario on vehicle owners for failing to stop for a school bus and in proceedings based on evidence obtained from a red light camera system.

Current section 191.8 of the Act authorizes municipalities to permit and regulate the operation of off-road vehicles with three or more wheels and low pressure bearing tires.  The section is amended to remove the requirement that the vehicles have low pressure bearing tires.

Current section 199.1 of the Act deals with vehicles classified as irreparable, rebuilt and salvage.  The section is amended as follows:  the Registrar is required, rather than merely empowered, to classify a vehicle as irreparable or salvage where the vehicle is classified as the equivalent to irreparable or salvage by a jurisdiction specified in the regulations; the right to make a submission respecting a classification is limited to the person who held the vehicle portion of the permit at the time of the event that led to the vehicle’s classification and who continues to hold it; the Registrar may appoint a reviewer to consider the submissions; and the submissions must be accompanied by a fee required by the reviewer.

New section 210.1 of the Act permits documents obtained from other provinces, territories and states of the United States in respect of vehicle ownership and certified by an Ontario provincial offences officer to be admissible in evidence as proof of vehicle ownership in proceedings relating to the parking, standing or stopping of a vehicle, in proceedings against the owner of a vehicle for failing to stop for a school bus and in proceedings based on evidence obtained from a red light camera system.

Current section 211 of the Act requires that all suspended driver’s licences be returned immediately to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.  This is amended so that a licence need not be returned if it is suspended under a provision specified by regulation.  Consequential amendments are made to sections 35 and 212.

Canada: New Drone (Unmanned Air Vehicles – UAV’s) Laws on the Horizon

Update:

http://www.hmsinsurance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/faa-drones.jpg
Drone in flight. It is expected that over a million drones will be given/received as gifts in December 2015 in North America. Transport Canada is working on updating the laws (that have been on the books since 1996) that surround the use of drones.

see source

In 2016, Transport Canada intends to introduce regulatory requirements for UAVs 25kgs or less that are operated within visual line-of-sight. They are relying upon the  Canadian Aviation Regulations Advisory Council (CARAC) to make the necessary recommendations.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT (NPA) UNMANNED AIR VEHICLES (UAV’S)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• The rising sales and evolving technology of unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) make them a rapidly growing part of the aviation industry. However, as their popularity increases, so does interference with manned aircraft. This presents unique challenges in developing regulations to safely integrate UAVs into Canada’s airspace.
• Transport Canada has a permissive regulatory framework that accommodates UAV operations by issuing Special Flight Operation Certificates (SFOCs). In 2010, Transport Canada established a joint industry and federal government working group to develop recommendations for regulatory changes, many of which are among the proposed changes of this document. The working group continues to develop regulatory recommendations for beyond visual line-of-sight operations.
• Transport Canada seeks a balanced approach to both safely integrate UAVs into Canadian airspace and encourage innovation within this important new subsector of civil aviation. At the same time, it is important to recognize the unique risks UAVs and UAV users of varying degrees of aviation expertise, pose to other airspace users. Transport Canada must develop Canada’s future regulatory framework to be risk-based, flexible, and consistent with international partners, where appropriate.
• In 2016, Transport Canada intends to introduce regulatory requirements for UAVs 25kgs or less that are operated within visual line-of-sight. The proposed regulatory amendments are intended to ensure the safe and reliable operation of UAVs in Canadian airspace and will:

  • establish classifications including a proposal for the possibility of having a very small (lower threshold) category of aircraft;
  • clarify terminology;
  • establish aircraft marking & registration requirements;
  • address personnel licensing & training; and create flight rules

• Transport Canada also intends to preserve the SFOC process to focus on higher risk operations, including UAVs larger than 25kgs and those operated beyond visual line-of-sight.

BACKGROUND
Note: While manufacturers and media may use different terms when describing a remotely controlled aircraft, this document uses the term Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs).
• Transport Canada regulates the use of all aircraft, manned or unmanned, to keep the public, the aviation community, and Canada’s airspace safe. UAV users are considered pilots and as such, are legitimate airspace users. With this privilege come responsibilities. The Canadian Aviation Regulations establishes the framework in which they can operate. The Canadian Aviation Regulations currently have separate definitions and requirements for model aircraft and unmanned air vehicles:
o A model aircraft is “an aircraft, the total weight of which does not exceed 35kgs (77.2 pounds), that is mechanically driven or launched into flight for recreational purposes”. However, for a large model aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of over 35kgs, users need an SFOC.
o A UAV is “a power-driven aircraft, other than a model aircraft, that is designed to fly without a human operator on board” and is required to operate in accordance with an SFOC”.
• Under the current framework, Transport Canada makes the distinction between recreational and non-recreational operations. An SFOC gives non-recreational pilots permission to fly and spells out when, where, and how. The SFOC process has been an effective way for Transport Canada to:
o accommodate UAV operations in Canada, and
o assess the risks of individual UAV operations on a case-by-case basis.

The growth of the UAV industry has resulted in growing numbers of SFOC applications to Transport Canada. In 2014, the department issued 1,672 SFOCs for UAVs, whereas it issued 945 SFOCs in 2013 and 345 SFOCs in 2012; this represents an overall increase of 485% over two years
• To accommodate the industry’s exponential growth, Transport Canada adopted an interim strategy. In November 2014, Transport Canada issued two exemptions to the SFOC requirements and guidance material for lower risk UAVs operating within specific conditions and weighing 25kgs or less.
Note: Individuals wishing to operate a UAV weighing more than 25kgs, or operate in higher risk environments must still apply through the SFOC process.
• These exemptions are valid until December 2016, as they are meant to be a temporary solution, while Transport Canada works to:
o introduce more rigorous safety requirements,
o create greater awareness of the legal responsibilities of UAV operators and
o mitigate the risks these UAVs could pose to other airspace users, as well as people and property on the ground.
• This new and rapidly evolving industry introduces regulatory challenges. This is why Transport Canada:
o may have to adjust new regulations in a few years to account for new technologies and market demands.
o will use both regulatory and non-regulatory instruments to enhance awareness, and
o collaborate with key industry partners.

Additional Public Environment Analysis
• A growing number of people in Canada are flying aircraft that, by design, are flown without a pilot on board and controlled using remote control devices such as a phone or a tablet. There are hundreds of known models of UAVs available on the market by a variety of retailers and manufacturers, including custom kits and modified UAVs.
• Currently, two organizations represent the UAV industry and model aircraft community:
o Unmanned Systems Canada (USC) is a not-for-profit association that has about 500 members, working to facilitate the growth and integration of UAVs in the Canadian economy.
o The Model Aeronautics Association of Canada (MAAC) is the governing body of model aircraft in Canada with established guidelines for its 13,000 members, and has a proven safety record.
• In 2014, the Unmanned Systems Canada (USC) update of the Canadian Civil UAS Study indicates that the dollar value of the Canadian UAV market can vary, but could range from $100 million to $260 million in procurement and operations over a 10 year period. USC’s report also noted a threefold increase in the number of Canadian companies conducting UAV operations since 2008 in an extensive range of applications in a number of economic sectors across the country:
o Agriculture surveys, cinematography and film, and police investigations are the leading and most mature market applications of UAVs in Canada.
o Meteorology/oceanography, search and rescue, urban planning/surveying, and disaster relief are the sectors requiring increased airspace access to facilitate growth.
• Canada has also seen an increase in the number of academic institutions with UAV research and development activities, as well as a growing number of training schools offering courses in UAV piloting skills influenced by Transport Canada guidance material and industry needs. Canadian universities currently focus on exploring new UAV applications as part of distinct aerospace or engineering programs.

Comparatively, the United States has a mature community of academic institutions and training schools offering formal programs in UAV engineering and pilot training. Transport Canada recognizes the role of academic institutions as an additional area of growth for the UAV industry.
• There have been several reports of reckless and negligent UAV use (for example near airports or at high altitudes). Since 2010, Transport Canada has launched 50 investigations across the country into incidents involving UAVs.
• Transport Canada will continue to work with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to emphasize the applicability and role of Canada’s privacy laws to the operations of UAVs by public and private sector organizations. The Privacy Commissioner’s March 2013 report titled “Drones in Canada: will the proliferation of domestic drone use in Canada raise new concerns for privacy?” indicates that as more people buy and use UAVs, it will be important to:
o balance the use of UAVs within an accountability structure; and
o put the necessary checks and balances in place.
In October 2014, Transport Canada launched a national safety awareness campaign for UAVs, which helps Canadians better understand the risks and responsibilities of flying UAVs.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM, POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS
• Under the current framework, model aircraft are:
o excluded from most Canadian Aviation Regulations that Transport Canada applies to manned aircraft; and
o required to operate in a manner that is not a risk to aviation safety.
• Greater availability of UAVs, widespread public recreational use, and growing numbers of commercial users from outside of the traditional aviation industry, has created a growing community of novice pilots who:
o might not be aware of the requirements when flying a UAV;
o think they are modellers; and/or
o may not have the requisite knowledge to operate a UAV safely.
• A lack of aviation knowledge may lead to operating a UAV in a situation or environment where it would pose a higher risk to aviation safety. In addition, a UAV pilot may not have an aviation background to know to give way to manned aircraft, recognize aerodrome and aviation markings, or identify weather conditions, to name a few. Transport Canada recognizes that lack of knowledge is a common risk between non-recreational and recreational pilots.
• Transport Canada applies the principles of risk management to maintain an effective level of oversight over its civil aviation activities. The risks involved in UAV operations are defined by the likelihood and severity of a UAV accident causing harm to persons and property on the ground, or to other airspace users. The department, to the greatest extent possible, seeks to reduce the risk of a catastrophic incident involving a UAV through appropriate regulation of the UAV pilot, aircraft, and operating environment.
• Applications for SFOCs require a high degree of technical complexity and level of detail as Transport Canada assesses the risks involved in each UAV operation on a case-by-case basis before issuing a certificate. The applications themselves create a challenge for a timely and efficient review and approval and create frustration for the industry. Applying a risk management approach to the new regulatory framework will allow Transport Canada to focus its resources on the UAV operations with the highest level of risk.
• There is growing potential for UAV’s in a variety of commercial activities. As such, Transport Canada will need to consider trade-related implications of UAV use.

INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
• Canada will adopt minimum civil aviation standards established by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). ICAO established the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Study Group (UASSG) in 2007 as a first step in developing an international regulatory framework for the unmanned aviation sector. ICAO serves as a focal point for Canada and other countries to develop a consistent and strategic approach to regulatory development for international UAS operations. In 2011, ICAO published Circular 328 on the operational and technical issues with respect to UAV operations in non-segregated airspace and near aerodromes. In March 2015, ICAO published a Manual on Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (Doc 10019), which will help Canada and its international partners in ongoing regulatory development.
• In February 2015, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for small UAS. Similar to Canada, the NPRM proposes a low category weight threshold for UAVs with less restrictive operating rules that are consistent with the lower risk of this weight category to airspace users and persons and property on the ground. Transport Canada intends to work with the FAA to align, to the extent practical, their respective regulatory frameworks to facilitate cross border trade for the UAV industry.
• The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International commissioned a report titled The Economic Impact of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the United States. The study concluded that the economic impact of integrating UAVs into the United States (U.S.) national airport system between 2015 and 2025 will likely contribute $82.1 billion to the U.S. economy through agriculture, public safety and other activities. In addition, this emerging industry will likely lead to creating 103,776 new jobs, with 844,741 job years worked over the time period.
• Canada is engaged with the United States on ongoing regulatory development and the coordination of UAV activities through the Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC). A Joint Forward Plan announced in August 2014 contains a specific commitment related to UAVs. Specifically, both countries committed to establishing a mechanism to share experiences on regulations related to unmanned aircraft systems, with a view to aligning regulatory approaches, to the extent practical.

Following the release of the U.S. NPRM and this NPA, Transport Canada will continue to share with the FAA how we:
o develop UAV regulations,
o promote UAV research & development
o address enforcement and compliance challenges, and
o collaborate on UAV activities in the Arctic. The Arctic collaboration includes the continued sharing of information through the Arctic Council’s Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme UAS Expert Working Group who are working on defining minimum safety and operational requirements and best practices for scientific UAS operations across Arctic countries.
• In March 2015, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) published its proposed new regulatory approach for UAVs or Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPAS). The report indicated that there are 2,495 operators and 114 RPAS manufacturers of very small to small RPAS with a maximum take-off mass up to 150kgs.

Called ‘Concept of Operations’, the European regulatory approach proposes three categories of operations.
1. The first category “open” would not require an authorisation for the flight but require users to remain within defined boundaries similar to the Canadian exemptions currently in place (for example: within visual line-of-sight, at safe distance from aerodromes and from people).
2. The second operation category of “specific” will require a risk assessment that will lead to an authorisation with specific limits. The EASA specific operations category for UAVs is similar to the current Canadian SFOC process.
3. The third operations category is “certified” and required for operations with a higher associated risk or might be requested on a voluntary basis by organisations providing services such as remote piloting or equipment such as “detect and avoid”. EASA’s upcoming regulations will not only address safety but also privacy concerns.
• Australia has had a regulatory framework for UAVs in place since 2002; but is moving to align its regulations with international partners and its terminology with ICAO, with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Its current regulatory framework:
o distinguishes between model aircraft and remotely pilot aircraft (RPA, or UAVs).
o requires model aircraft to operate in visual line-of-sight, and in day visual meteorological conditions, and
o restricts model aircraft from flying higher than 400 feet (120 metres), or over populous areas.
Australia defines a UAV as a remotely piloted aircraft of any size for commercial reward, and requires a UAV controller’s certificate and an unmanned operator’s certificate.
• The United Kingdom’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) introduced regulations in 2010 that requires operators of small UAVs used for aerial work, data acquisition, or surveillance to obtain permission before operation. The CAA reviews its permission every 12 months, and requires an assessment of the pilot’s knowledge and ability to operate the UAV; but is not based on a civilian pilot’s licence.

TRIAGE
• The triage statement is still being developed in accordance with the Treasury Board Triage Statement criteria.

RECOMMENDED CONSULTATION STREAM
• In 2006, Transport Canada led a joint industry / government Unmanned Air Vehicle Working Group to review existing legislation and make recommendations for a regulatory framework. The working group published a final report to develop the scope of UAV regulations in Canada with recommendations on:
o terminology and definitions;
o aircraft registration & marking;
o flight crew and maintainer licensing; and
o aircraft maintenance, airworthiness and operations.
• Using the recommendations from the first working group, a second joint industry/government working group was established in 2010. The UAV Systems Program Design Working Group is making recommendations for regulations and standards for the safe integration of UAVs into Canadian airspace. Members are representatives with specialized technical knowledge from:
o the aviation community;
o professional associations;
o system developers;
o operators;
o academia; and
o provincial and federal governments.
The working group was divided into a main working group and three sub-working groups to specifically look at people, products and operations & airspace access. A Phase I final report was published in March 2012 and is available online.
• The UAV Systems Program Design Working Group is still active and will soon complete work on phase II, the operation of small UAVs beyond visual line-of-sight.

Recommended Consultation Stream
• In recognition of the extensive work, efforts and membership of the UAV Systems Program Design Working Group, a Preliminary Issue and Consultation Assessment is not required.
• Transport Canada invites stakeholder comments through this Notice of Proposed Amendment that the department will share with members of the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council comprised of approximately 570 representatives of aviation associations, airlines, manufacturers, maintenance organizations, airports, provincial and federal departments, foreign aviation safety authorities and unions.
• In recognition that the target audience for this consultation is broader than the aviation industry, Transport Canada also invites members of the public to comment.

Transport Canada will:
o publicize this NPA on its social media channels (Twitter and Facebook).
o consider comments as it proceeds with drafting the amendments to the regulations and standards.
• Transport Canada will then publish proposed regulations in the Canada Gazette, where stakeholders and Canadians will have the opportunity to provide additional comments.

OBJECTIVE
• The primary objective of these proposed amendments is to establish a more rigorous risk-based framework that is consistent with Canada’s international partners, where appropriate, for the safe integration of UAVs 25kgs or less in Canada’s airspace for within visual line-of-sight operations.

PROPOSED CHANGES
Note: the intent of this section is not to present suggested wording for the regulations but to present proposed concepts.

ACRONYMS USED IN THIS SECTION
ATC Air Traffic Control
CARs Canadian Aviation Regulations
FPV First Person View
GPS Global Positioning System
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
KM Kilometer
MAAC Model Aeronautics Association of Canada
MTOW Maximum Take-off Weight
NM Nautical Mile
NPA Notice of Proposed Amendment
RPA Remotely Piloted Aircraft
RPAS Remotely Piloted Aircraft System
SFOC Special Flight Operations Certificate
UA Unmanned Aircraft
UAS Unmanned Aircraft System
UAV Unmanned Air Vehicle
VLOS Visual Line-of-Sight

DEFINITIONS
The following definitions may help readers understand this Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) and could be included in the Canadian Aviation Regulations.
Control Station – the facilities and/or equipment remote from the unmanned air vehicle from which the aircraft is controlled and/or monitored.

First Person View Device – a device that generates and transmits a streaming video image to a ground station display or monitor, giving the UAV pilot who is viewing this video, the illusion of actually flying the UAV from an onboard pilot perspective.

Fly-away – an interruption or loss of the command and control link where the pilot is unable to affect control of the aircraft and the aircraft is no longer following its preprogrammed procedures; resulting in the UAV not operating in a predictable or planned manner.

Lost Link – the loss of command and control link contact with the UAV such that the pilot can no longer manage the aircraft’s flight.

Payload – all elements of the aircraft that are not necessary for flight but are carried for the purpose of fulfilling specific mission objectives. This may include sub-systems such as intelligence and surveillance assets, communication relay equipment, sensors, cargo and cameras.

Sense and Avoid – the capability to see, sense or detect, conflicting traffic or other hazards and take appropriate action.

Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) – unaided (corrective lenses and/or sunglasses exempted) visual contact with the aircraft sufficient to be able to maintain operational control of the aircraft, know its location, and be able to scan the airspace in which it is operating to decisively see and avoid other air traffic or objects.

1. APPLICABILITY
The proposed rules would apply to all operations of unmanned air vehicle (UAV) systems, where the UAV maximum take-off weight (MTOW) is 25kgs or less, hereafter referred to as small UAVs, and the UAV is operated within visual line-of-sight (VLOS). This rulemaking is limited in scope to operations conducted entirely within Canadian domestic airspace. This includes:
• UAVs operated for any purpose, including but not limited to recreational, commercial, business and academia purposes*; and
• UAVs that are physically tethered (versus electronic tether)**.
NOTES:
*The definition of UAV would change so that it no longer depends on the purpose of the operation. Therefore, this rule would apply to all UAV operations.

** These UAVs would also need to meet lighting and marking rules for obstacles found under section 601.23 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations.
This proposed rule encompasses the widest possible range of operations for the proposed UAV categories and this approach uses a regulatory structure similar to manned aircraft operations. It is not intended to be an incremental set of rules that targets a narrow set of operations as was the case in Transport Canada’s November 2014 UAV exemptions . Specifically, UAV operations would see a regulation related to risk level.

For example, while:
o a UAV that could cause very limited damage to people, property, and other aircraft in case of incident, would be subject to lesser regulations;
o the operation of a heavier, more complex, UAV operations that could cause a greater amount of damage to people, property, and other aircraft in case of incident, would see additional restrictions to mitigate the greater risks associated with these operations.

This proposed rule will not apply to the following activities:
• UAV operations that fall outside the scope of the proposed rule (e.g. UAVs greater that 25kgs, UAVs operated beyond visual line-of-sight, etc)*;
• indoor or underground UAV operations;
• autonomous UAVs, where the ability to alter the mission and decisions on the conduct of the mission are made by the UAV system without pilot involvement; and
• kites, rockets or unmanned free balloons
UAVs operated under the authority of the Minister of National Defence, in accordance with the Aeronautics Act are also excluded from this proposed rule because these operations do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport.
*UAVs larger than 25kgs are outside of these rules but could continue to be operated with a Special Flight Operations Certificate.

2. MODEL AIRCRAFT
The objective of this portion of the proposed rulemaking activity is to define a regulatory approach that will allow traditional modellers to continue to conduct safe flight activities.

While the proposed rule is intended to establish requirements for safely operating UAV systems in Canadian airspace, there is a model aircraft component to this rulemaking activity. The rule proposes to address UAVs used for any and all purposes and intends to provide a “carve-out” for modellers operating within an aeromodelling organization that allows the continued activities (sport/ recreation and competition) that model aircraft enthusiasts have enjoyed for decades. As such, the proposal is to only better define what constitutes a model aircraft and to that end

Transport Canada is inviting feedback on the following proposed solutions.
Approach 1: To provide a means to recognize aeromodelling organizations, such as the Model Aeronautics Association of Canada (MAAC), that have a proven safety record, a mature piloting community and provide a well established set of safety guidelines.
For example, persons
• launching model aircraft for recreational purposes who are members in good standing of an aeromodelling organization and operate under its safety guidelines would not be required to meet the requirements of the proposed rule.
• not participating in the safety program established by an aeromodelling organization would no longer be considered to be operating model aircraft and would have to comply with the proposed rule for UAV operations.

Approach 2: Transport Canada may consider model aircraft equipped with a camera payload, excluding first person view (FPV) devices to no longer be a model aircraft, but a UAV, and subject to the UAV rules. The rationale is that persons using the aircraft to take pictures or videos would in fact be conducting surveillance or collecting data, so launching the aircraft for a secondary purpose (e.g. as a flying camera) other than recreational flying only.

Transport Canada is seeking comments on the two proposed options, to include alternative recommendation or a combination of the two approaches listed above.
It remains the objective of this portion of the proposed rulemaking activity to define a regulatory approach that will allow the continued safe conduct of the flight activities currently undertaken by traditional modellers.

3. TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS
The proposed rule would create a new set of terminology and definitions to address the unique aspects of UAVs. This will include amendments to existing terms already in regulation to capture the fact that the pilot is not on-board the aircraft and that the UAV is a system with the physical aircraft being only one component of that system.
The international community is no longer using the term unmanned air vehicle or the acronym, UAV. Therefore, it is proposed that the new terms and definitions will be harmonized, to the extent possible, with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices.

The new terms introduced by ICAO include:
• UA (unmanned aircraft);
• UAS (unmanned aircraft system);
• RPA (remotely-piloted aircraft); and
• RPAS (remotely-piloted aircraft system).
These terms are more appropriate since they designate these “vehicles” as aircraft and recognize that the UAS/RPAS includes not only the airframe but also the associated elements required for flight, such as the control station and command and control links.

Transport Canada proposes to define the term UAS and use the term RPAS for the proposed set of rules. In keeping with the ICAO approach, the term UAS would be an overarching term with RPAS and autonomous unmanned systems being subsets, thereof. RPAS are the focus of this NPA and specifically identify those UAS that permit pilot intervention while autonomous systems capture the notion of those aircraft that do not permit any pilot interaction. Autonomous UAS would be the subject of future regulations.

4. CATEGORIZATION OF THE REGULATORY STRUCTURE
The intent of the proposed regulatory effort is to provide a risk-based regulatory regime that encompasses the widest possible range of small UAV operations. To this end, Transport Canada is seeking comments on establishing categories for various types of operations and/or UAVs, as follows:

Complex Operations with Small UAVs

Operating small UAVs under this category would be considered to be the most challenging as it would occur in and around urban or built-up areas and allow operations close to aerodromes. This category would have the most comprehensive set of regulatory requirements which, in turn, would provide for the greatest level of safety and operational flexibility.

Limited Operations with Small UAVs

This category would have less regulatory requirements than complex operations due to their lower-risk profile although would be limited to remote areas. This would result in:
• defining specific geographic limitation around where this category of UAV could operate (e.g. specific distances from aerodromes or built-up areas).
• adding restrictions on the operation to ensure that these UAVs would not encroach on areas where the operation would create a greater risk.

Operations with Very Small UAVs
Transport Canada has considered whether to establish a “lower threshold” or very small UAV category that would be regulated to a lesser extent due to its nature and operating environment, and the lowered risk of damage that the aircraft would cause to a person and property on the ground and other airspace users in case of incident.
Transport Canada invites comments on whether it should consider introducing a category for operations with very small UAVs (lower threshold) and whether it should base such a category only on weight or consider an alternative approach, such as kinetic energy. Transport Canada issued an Exemption from Sections 602.41 and 603.66 of Canadian Aviation Regulations, on November 26, 2014, that addressed persons conducting flight operations using UAVs with a maximum take-off weight not exceeding 2kgs, operated within visual line-of-sight.
Another potential alternative for classifying a Very Small (lower threshold) UAV could include the use of a basic table/grid that would compare the UAVs maximum weight and maximum airspeed to determine the lethality of such a lower threshold UAV.

The Canadian Aviation Regulations Advisory Council’s UAV Systems Program Design Working Group recommended rulemaking that would separately address a “low energy” category, specifically a UAV that has been analyzed and/or demonstrated, for the case of an uncontrolled impact, to not impart a peak energy of more than 12J/cm2 on a stationary person or object in the most unfavourable of circumstances. Transport Canada invites stakeholders to submit data that validates this “low energy” classification and outlines a repeatable method to evaluate these aircraft to ensure that they meet the additional criteria of:
(a) low mass;
(b) low maximum speed;
(c) frangible or energy-absorbing deformable structure;
(d) small footprint;
(e) “soft” flight termination recovery;
(f) no hard massive components; and
(g) protection against fire.

Please note: While Transport Canada would not eliminate a set of operational rules for this lower threshold category of UAV, they would be less burdensome. For example, Transport Canada would not apply the requirement to hold a pilot permit and to mark and register the UAV of this category. Instead, Transport Canada would require pilot training and an aeronautical knowledge test, but would not issue a pilot permit. Additionally, while the aircraft would require identification, it would not be subject to the marking and registration requirements of a small UAV.
The following proposed regulatory requirements are broken down based on the categories described above.

5. SMALL UAV (COMPLEX OPERATIONS)

UAV Operator Certificate Requirements
Transport Canada proposes to permit the operation of a complex small UAV system without issuing a UAV Operator Certificate. However, to ensure that larger UAV operators with a large span of control and complex operations have an adequate management structure and can conduct a safe operation, some additional regulations may be required. Transport Canada is seeking comments on the following proposal.

UAV operators meeting certain criteria would need to register with Transport Canada before conducting operations. Transport Canada would require these UAV operators to have, consistent with the nature of its operation and commensurate with the size, structure and complexity of the organization:
• an adequate management organization;
• a method of control and supervision of flight operations;
• pilot training programs;
• security procedures;
• a maintenance control system;
• a company operations manual; and
• standard operating procedures.

Transport Canada is seeking comment on the appropriate criteria for a UAV operator. Criteria it is considering include:
• the number of employees (e.g. more than 3);
• companies who hire persons in commercial UAV enterprises;
• companies with a large scope of operation (i.e. multi-region, across Canada, or large numbers and /or types of aircraft); or
• a combination of the above.

Such a proposal would include rules describing UAV operator responsibilities within the following areas:
• Flight Operations
• Documentation
• Flight Time and Flight Duty Time Limitations
• Emergency Equipment
• Maintenance Requirements
• Personnel Requirements
• Training Programs
• Operations Manual

Aircraft Marking and Registration
For the Small UAV (Complex Operations) category, Transport Canada is proposing:
• to require the aircraft to be marked and registered. Given the diversity of size and configuration of these UAVs, marking specifications (e.g. size of lettering) will be flexible so that the size of the marks will be as large as practical consistent with the size and configuration of the UAV.
• to require persons wanting to register an aircraft to meet the qualifications to be a registered owner of a Canadian aircraft as outlined in section 202.15 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations.
Note: The Certificate of Registration would not be carried on-board the aircraft, rather the documentation would be accessible by the pilot-in-command during flight operations.
• a unique series of 4 letter registration marks, starting with a specific letter. This will address a variety of unique reporting requirements and provide an easy way to differentiate between manned and unmanned aircraft to support Air Traffic Control (ATC) concerns and practices.
• to not require this category of UAVs to have an aircraft identification plate.

Personnel Licensing and Training
Transport Canada proposes that UAV pilots be considered pilots as defined by the Aeronautics Act and the Canadian Aviation Regulations. Their responsibilities include ensuring that they obtain proper training and experience in order to safely operate their aircraft within Canadian airspace.

The following additional requirements are being proposed:

Pilot Permit
For the Small UAV (Complex Operations), Transport Canada proposes:
• to require UAV pilots to be properly trained and licensed to assure safe integration within Canadian airspace and hold a pilot permit.
• to issue a pilot permit, versus a pilot licence, as the privileges of the permit would only apply to flight within Canadian domestic airspace.
Specifically, Transport Canada proposes that the following criteria for obtaining a pilot permit:
o Age –A minimum age requirement of 14 while under adult supervision and 16 without adult supervision. Transport Canada is seeking comments on whether this proposal is considered appropriate for this type of UAV operation.
o Medical Fitness – A Category 4 Medical Certificate would be required, based on a Self-declaration process. It would be valid for 60 months. This is consistent with other Canadian pilot permits.
o Knowledge – Pilots would be required to complete a course of instruction in specific aviation knowledge areas and pass a Transport Canada written examination that would be developed specifically for this category of UAV. Training could be provided by a flight training school, a UAV training provider, a third party or be self administered.
o Experience – Pilots would need to acquire practical training on the category of UAV, including UAV system-specific training. This training may be provided to the pilot by the manufacturer, operator or by a third party, providing the person providing such training held a UAV pilot permit.
o Skill – Pilots would be required to demonstrate competency in the ability to perform normal and emergency procedures appropriate to the particular type of UAV. Skill tests/proficiency checks would be conducted by qualified UAV operators, manufacturers or third parties.
o Currency – UAV pilots would be required to maintain currency and proficiency.
o Privileges – meeting these criteria and the issuance of a permit, would allow a person to be a pilot-in-command of a UAV 25kgs or less, operated within visual line-of-sight within Canadian domestic airspace.
Proposed Content of Knowledge Subject Areas
Below are the proposed knowledge subject areas Transport Canada and industry have developed that a person operating a UAV would require. These include:
• air law and procedures relevant to the permit (e.g. general provisions, general operating and flight rules, air traffic control services and procedures, aviation occurrence reporting);
• airspace (e.g. structure, classification; reporting requirements);
• flight instruments (e.g. altimetry, GPS, airspeed and heading indicators);
• navigation (e.g. aeronautical charts, pre-flight preparation);
• flight operations (e.g. wake turbulence causes, effects and avoidance; data and command links);
• meteorology (e.g. required for visual line-of-sight operations);
• human factors (e.g. aviation physiology, the operating environment, aviation psychology); and
• theory of flight (e.g. basic principles).
Or, as an alternative to the knowledge subject areas above, TP15263E “Recommended Knowledge Requirements for Pilots of Small Unmanned Air Vehicle Systems, Restricted to Visual Line-of-Sight” could be used as the basis for the knowledge requirements for the pilot of a small UAV.
Transport Canada invites comments on:
• the proposed areas of knowledge to be tested; and
• whether there should be additional knowledge areas added to the proposed list above or whether TP15263E provides the appropriate knowledge areas required for this category of UAV. Candidate testing would follow the examination rules in section 400.02 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations.
Persons applying for a pilot permit would need to meet the proof of age and citizenship requirements as outlined in section 421.06 of the Personnel Licensing and Training Standards Respecting Flight Crew Permits, Licences and Ratings.
Transport Canada also proposes that:
• credits for some of the permit provisions would be provided for other holders of permits and licences, including active and retired Canadian Armed Forces pilots. Additionally, documented experience gained through operations with small (limited category) or very small UAVs could be recognized towards the requirements for the pilot permit.
• operators of launch systems and arresting hooks, visual observers, payload operators and mission planners will not need licensing certification.

Flight Training
It is proposed that Transport Canada not certify flight training units or schools that provide theoretical or flight training to UAV operators and their crews. This would include schools for any UAV position to include pilots, visual observers and maintenance personnel.

Aircraft Maintenance Engineers
It is proposed that Aircraft Maintenance Engineer licensing would not be required for this category of UAV operating within VLOS. The skill set of an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer is not suited for aircraft of this size.

Airworthiness
It is also proposed that manufacturers of a small UAV (complex operations) system be required to declare that the UAV system meets a design standard for UAV systems for this category. The content of this Standard represents a balance between prescriptive requirements and statements of best design practice. The guiding principle of such a standard would be that the probability of a hazardous failure condition (i.e. one that may result in no more than a single fatality) must not be greater than extremely remote.

The Transport Canada UAV System Program Design Working Group developed a design standard for UAVs, 25kgs or less, operated within visual line-of-sight. For small UAVs (complex operations), it is proposed that the design standard would detail requirements for the following areas:
• Flight Performance
• Structure
• Design and Construction
• Propulsion System
• Systems and Equipment
o General Function and Installation
o Flight and Navigation Information
o High Intensity Radiated Fields Protection
o Equipment, Systems and Installations
• Navigation Systems
• Sense and Avoid Systems
• UAV Control
• Launch and Recovery Systems
• Payloads
• Manuals and Documentation

Transport Canada invites comments, particularly from UAV manufacturers, whether compliance with this standard would be achievable and commensurate with the risk posed to people and property on the ground and other airspace users for operations under this proposed rule. Transport Canada is willing to consider that there may be other validated consensus standards from recognized Standards’ groups that may be acceptable, so welcomes feedback that identifies any such standards.
While Transport Canada is proposing a design standard for this category of UAV,

Transport Canada would not:
• require type certificates or production approvals; or
• issue a flight authority (i.e. Certificate of Airworthiness).
Please note: The intent of a design standard is to provide an increased level of assurance in the safety of the UAV system. If such a design standard is not published as part of the proposed rulemaking efforts, Transport Canada would need a more restrictive regulatory regime to mitigate the increased risk of operating UAVs, that have not been built to any safety standard, near or over persons and near other aviation activities.

Aircraft Maintenance Requirements
Transport Canada is proposing that small UAVs be maintained by the owner/operator of the UAV system. General maintenance of these UAV systems would be performed by a person possessing the relevant experience and training on the maintenance of the specific UAV system and authorized by the owner/operator. This approach would be consistent with the risk associated with this category of aircraft.

General Operating and Flight Rules
Transport Canada proposes to impose specific operating limitations to reduce or minimize potential encounters between manned and unmanned aircraft and to protect people and property on the ground. Such limitations would reflect the level of risk associated with a small UAV system (complex operations).
For Small UAVs (complex operations), it is proposed that general operating rules covering the following areas would be incorporated;
• always operate within visual line-of-sight through unaided visual contact with the UAV.
• always give way to manned aircraft.
• never operate in a reckless or negligent manner.
• operate in visual meteorological conditions.
• never operate:
o within Class A and Class B airspace,
o within Class F Restricted airspace without required permission,
o within, or in the vicinity of, a forest fire area,
o at an air show, or
o at an aerodrome.
• advance coordination with the air traffic control.
• never operate when suffering from fatigue or under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
• only one UAV operated in flight by a single pilot.
• operate in accordance with the published UAV operating limitations.
• do not allow the use of a portable electronic device at the control station.
• never carry any explosive, corrosive or bio-hazard payloads on a UAV or create a hazard by dropping an object from the UAV.
• ensure visual observers have reliable communication with the pilot and can perform observation duties for only one (1) UAV.
• do not allow visual observers to function from a moving surface vehicle.
• ensure that the UAV System is in an airworthy condition before flight.
• there must be a means of: controlling and monitoring the UAV, navigating, avoiding other aircraft, terrain and obstacles, lighting the aircraft for night operations, remaining clear of clouds.
• require liability insurance.
• always follow a physical and command and control link security plan.
• the need for the UAV to be properly equipped for the area of operation and the type of operation (e.g. radios, transponders, etc)
• get permission from the owner(s) of the property on which the UAV intends to take-off from and/or land on.
• assess the lost link risk before the flight.
• never operate in areas of high electromagnetic interference.
• never take off with snow or ice on the aircraft.
• be familiar with the available information required for the intended flight.
• comply with Air Traffic Control instructions.
• remain clear of the take-off, approach and landing routes and the pattern of traffic formed by manned aircraft operating at the aerodrome.
• meet specific communications requirements as detailed in the Canadian Aviation

Regulations.
• notify Air Traffic Control in the case of a UAV fly-away.
• comply with minimum lateral distance requirements from person, animals, buildings, vehicles, etc.
• comply with maximum altitude requirements – not above 400 feet above ground level.
• comply with accident/incident reporting requirements.

6. SMALL UAV (LIMITED OPERATIONS)

UAV Operator Certificate Requirements
Transport Canada proposes to permit the operation of a limited small UAV system without issuing a UAV Operator Certificate. However, to ensure that larger UAV operators with a large span of control and complex operations have an adequate management structure and can conduct a safe operation, some additional regulations may be required. As such, Transport Canada is seeking comments on the following proposal.

UAV operators meeting certain criteria would need to register with Transport Canada before conducting operations. Transport Canada would require these UAV operators to have, consistent with the nature of its operation and commensurate with the size, structure and complexity of the organization:
• an adequate management organization;
• a method of control and supervision of flight operations;
• pilot training programs;
• security procedures;
• a maintenance control system;
• a company operations manual; and
• standard operating procedures.

Transport Canada is seeking comment on the appropriate criteria for a UAV operator. Criteria it is considering include:
• the number of employees (e.g. more than 3);
• companies who hire persons in commercial UAV enterprises;
• companies with a large scope of operation (i.e. multi-region, across Canada, or large numbers and /or types of aircraft); or
• a combination of the above.

Such a proposal would include rules describing UAV operator responsibilities within the following areas:
• Flight Operations
• Documentation
• Flight Time and Flight Duty Time Limitations
• Emergency Equipment
• Maintenance Requirements
• Personnel Requirements
• Training Programs
• Operations Manual

Aircraft Marking and Registration
Transport Canada is proposing:
• to require small UAVs for limited operations to be marked and registered. Given the diversity of size and configuration of these UAVs, marking specifications (e.g. size of lettering) will be flexible so that the size of the marks will be as large as practical, consistent with the size and configuration of the UAV.
• to require persons wanting to register a small UAV for limited operations to meet the qualifications to be a registered owner of a Canadian aircraft as outlined in section 202.15 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations.
Note: The Certificate of Registration would not be carried on-board the aircraft, rather the documentation would be accessible by the pilot-in-command during flight operations.
• a unique series of 4 letter registration marks, starting with a specific letter. This will address a variety of unique reporting requirements and provide an easy manner to differentiate between manned and unmanned aircraft to support Air Traffic Control (ATC) concerns and practices.
• to not require this category of UAVs to have an aircraft identification plate.
Personnel Licensing and Training
Transport Canada proposes that UAV pilots be considered pilots as defined by the Aeronautics Act and the Canadian Aviation Regulations. Their responsibilities include ensuring that they obtain proper training and experience to safely operate their aircraft within Canadian airspace.
The following is specific to limited operations with small UAVs (Limited Operations) category:

Pilot Permit
Transport Canada proposes:
• to not require pilots of the proposed Small UAV (limited operations) category to obtain a pilot permit or medical certificate.
• to not set a minimum age requirement for pilots of small UAVs (limited operations), provided they are operating with adult supervision. A minimum age of 16 years is proposed to allow operations without adult supervision. However, these pilots would be required to demonstrate aeronautical knowledge in specific subject areas, such as airspace classification and structure.
Note: This could, for example, be an on-line self-study program and test that is fashioned after existing models used by government agencies that require a demonstration of knowledge as a prerequisite to conducting specific activities.

Proposed Content of Knowledge Subject Areas
Below are the knowledge subject areas, both Transport Canada and industry believe a person operating a small UAV (limited operations) would need. These include:
• air law and procedures relevant to the permit (e.g. general provisions, general operating and flight rules, air traffic control services and procedures, aviation occurrence reporting);
• airspace (e.g. structure, classification; reporting requirements);
• flight instruments (e.g. altimetry, GPS, airspeed and heading indicators);
• navigation (e.g. aeronautical charts, pre-flight preparation);
• flight operations (e.g. wake turbulence causes, effects and avoidance; data and command links);
• meteorology (e.g. required for visual line-of-sight operations);
• human factors (e.g. aviation physiology, the operating environment, aviation psychology); and
• theory of flight (e.g. basic principles).
Or, as an alternative to the knowledge subject areas above, TP15263E “Recommended Knowledge Requirements for Pilots of Small Unmanned Air Vehicle Systems, Restricted to Visual Line-of-Sight” could be the basis for the knowledge requirements for the pilot of a small UAV (limited operations).

Transport Canada invites comments on:
• the proposed areas of knowledge; and
• whether there should be additional knowledge areas added to the proposed list above or whether TP15263E provides the appropriate knowledge areas required for this category of UAV.

Transport Canada also proposes to not require licensing certification of operators of launch systems and arresting hooks, visual observers, payload operators and mission planners.

Flight Training
It is proposed that Transport Canada not certify flight training units or schools that provide theoretical or flight training to UAV operators and their crews. This would include schools for any UAV position to include pilots, visual observers and maintenance personnel.

Aircraft Maintenance Engineers
It is proposed that Aircraft Maintenance Engineer licensing would not be required for this category of UAV operating within VLOS. The skill set of an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer is not suited for aircraft of this size.

Airworthiness
It is also proposed that manufacturers of UAV systems for the Small UAV (limited operations) category be required to declare that the UAV system meets a design standard for UAV systems for this category. The content of this Standard represents a balance between prescriptive requirements and statements of best design practice. The guiding principle of such a standard would be that the probability of a hazardous failure condition (i.e. one that may result in no more than a single fatality) must not be greater than extremely remote.

The Transport Canada UAV System Program Design Working Group developed a design standard for UAVs, 25kgs or less, operated within visual line-of-sight. For small UAVs (limited operations), it is proposed that the design standard would detail requirements for the following areas:
• Flight Performance
• Structure
• Design and Construction
• Propulsion System
• Systems and Equipment
o General Function and Installation
o Flight and Navigation Information
o High Intensity Radiated Fields Protection
o Equipment, Systems and Installations
• Navigation Systems
• Sense and Avoid Systems
• UAV Control
• Launch and Recovery Systems
• Payloads
• Manuals and Documentation

Transport Canada invites comments, particularly from UAV manufacturers, whether compliance with this standard would be achievable and commensurate with the risk posed to people and property on the ground and other airspace users for operations under this proposed rule. Transport Canada is willing to consider that there may be other validated consensus standards from recognized Standards’ groups that may be acceptable, so welcomes feedback that identifies any such standards.

While Transport Canada is proposing a design standard for this category of UAV, Transport Canada would not:
• require type certificates or production approvals; or
• issue a flight authority (i.e. Certificate of Airworthiness).
Please note: The intent of a design standard is to provide an increased level of assurance in the safety of the UAV system. If such a design standard is not published as part of the proposed rulemaking efforts, Transport Canada would need a more restrictive regulatory regime to mitigate the increased risk of operating UAVs, that have not been built to any safety standard, near or over persons and near other aviation activities.

Aircraft Maintenance Requirements

Transport Canada is proposing that small UAVs (limited operations) be maintained by the owner/operator of the UAV system. General maintenance of these UAV systems would be performed by a person possessing the relevant experience and training on the maintenance of the specific UAV system and authorized by the owner/operator. This approach would be consistent with the risk associated with this category of aircraft.

General Operating and Flight Rules
Transport Canada proposes to impose specific operating limitations to reduce or minimize potential encounters between manned and unmanned aircraft and to protect people and property on the ground. Such limitations would reflect the level of risk associated with a small UAV system (limited operations).

For UAVs falling under the proposed small UAV (limited operations) category, in addition to some of the rules proposed in the Small UAV (complex operations) section, Transport Canada proposes to incorporate operational restrictions addressing the following areas:
• operate only during the day.
• comply with a maximum airspeed limit of 87knots.
• never operate in Class C, D, E or F airspace.
• comply with a specified minimum distance from aerodromes*.
• comply with the minimum distance of 5nm (9 km) from built-up areas (cities, towns or villages).
• comply with maximum altitude requirements – not above 300 feet above ground level.
*Transport Canada is considering two (2) options with regard to the minimum distance from aerodromes that small UAVs (limited operations) should be permitted to operate.

Approach 1 would mirror the current exemptions that were provided for lower-risk UAV operations and established a minimum distance of 5nm (9 km) from any aerodrome.

Approach 2 is based on the principal of prohibiting the operation of small UAVs (limited operations) within controlled airspace, including control zones. To accommodate the largest control zones in Canada, this proposal would be to restrict operations within 11 nm (20 km) of any aerodrome.
Transport Canada is seeking comment on the above approaches.

7. VERY SMALL UAV (LOWER THRESHOLD)

UAV Operator Certificate Requirements
Transport Canada proposes to permit the operation of a lower threshold UAV system without issuing a UAV Operator Certificate. However, to ensure that larger UAV operators with a large span of control and complex operations have an adequate management structure and can conduct a safe operation, some additional regulations may be required. As such, Transport Canada is seeking comments on the following proposal.

UAV operators meeting certain criteria would need to register with Transport Canada before conducting operations. Transport Canada would require these UAV operators to have, consistent with the nature of its operation and commensurate with the size, structure and complexity of the organization:
• an adequate management organization;
• a method of control and supervision of flight operations;
• pilot training programs;
• security procedures;
• a maintenance control system;
• a company operations manual; and
• standard operating procedures.

Transport Canada is seeking comment on the appropriate criteria for a UAV operator. Criteria it is considering include:
• the number of employees (e.g. more than 3);
• companies who hire persons in commercial UAV enterprises;
• companies with a large scope of operation (i.e. multi-region, across Canada, or large numbers and /or types of aircraft); or
• a combination of the above.

Such a proposal would include rules describing UAV operator responsibilities within the following areas:
• Flight Operations
• Documentation
• Flight Time and Flight Duty Time Limitations
• Emergency Equipment
• Maintenance Requirements
• Personnel Requirements
• Training Programs
• Operations Manual

Aircraft Marking and Registration
Transport Canada proposes to not require the owner of a UAV falling under the proposed Very Small UAV (lower threshold) category to register their aircraft as would be the case with the small UAVs. They would instead be required to have permanent marking for identification (e.g. pilot name and contact information) on their UAV operating in this category. This identification would help Transport Canada officials during oversight activities.

Personnel Licensing and Training
Transport Canada proposes that UAV pilots be considered pilots as defined by the Aeronautics Act and the Canadian Aviation Regulations. UAV pilots in turn have responsibilities, including ensuring that they obtain proper training and experience in order to safely operate their aircraft within Canadian airspace.
The following is specific to the Very Small UAV (lower threshold) category:
Pilot Permit
For this lower threshold category, Transport Canada proposes:
• to not require pilots to obtain a pilot permit or medical certificate.
• to not set a minimum age requirement for pilots operating Very Small UAVs, provided they are operating with adult supervision. A minimum age of 16 years is proposed to allow operations without adult supervision. However, these pilots would be required to demonstrate aeronautical knowledge in specific subject areas, such as airspace classification and structure.
Note: This could, for example, be an on-line self-study program and test that is fashioned after existing models used by government agencies that require a demonstration of knowledge as a prerequisite to conducting specific activities.

Proposed Content of Knowledge Subject Areas
Below are the knowledge subject areas both Transport Canada and industry believe a person operating a very small UAV (lower threshold) would need. These include:
• air law and procedures relevant to the permit (e.g. general provisions, general operating and flight rules, air traffic control services and procedures, aviation occurrence reporting);
• airspace (e.g. structure, classification; reporting requirements);
• flight instruments (e.g. altimetry, GPS, airspeed and heading indicators);
• navigation (e.g. aeronautical charts, pre-flight preparation);
• flight operations (e.g. wake turbulence causes, effects and avoidance; data and command links);
• meteorology (e.g. required for visual line-of-sight operations);

Transport Canada invites comments:
• on the proposed areas of knowledge; and
• whether there should be additional knowledge areas added to the proposed list for this category of UAV.

Transport Canada also proposes to not require licensing certification of operators of launch systems and arresting hooks, visual observers, payload operators and mission planners.

Flight Training
It is proposed that Transport Canada not certify flight training units or schools that provide theoretical or flight training to UAV operators and their crews. This would include schools for any UAV position to include pilots, visual observers and maintenance personnel.

Aircraft Maintenance Engineers
It is proposed that Aircraft Maintenance Engineer licensing would not be required for this category of UAV operating within VLOS. The skill set of an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer is not suited for aircraft of this size.

Airworthiness
Transport Canada is proposing to not require UAVs that fall under the proposed Very Small UAV (lower threshold) to meet a design standard.

Aircraft Maintenance Requirements
Transport Canada proposes that Very Small UAV systems that fall into the lower threshold category:
• will not be required to meet any design standard or have any specific maintenance requirements.
• will be required to follow any maintenance instructions provided by the manufacturer.
• will be required to conduct a pre-flight check to ensure that the aircraft is in a fit and safe state for flight before take-off.

General Operating and Flight Rules
Transport Canada proposes to impose specific operating limitations to reduce or minimize potential encounters between manned and unmanned aircraft and to protect people and property on the ground. Such limitations would reflect the level of risk associated with a Very Small (lower threshold) UAV system.
For UAVs falling under the proposed Very Small UAV (lower threshold) category, in addition to some of the rules proposed in the Small UAV (complex operations) category, Transport Canada proposes to incorporate operational restrictions addressing the following areas:
• operate only during the day.
• never operate in Class C, D, E or F airspace.
• comply with the minimum distance from aerodromes of 5nm (9 km).
• comply with maximum altitude requirements – not above 300 feet above ground level

Currently, in accordance with section 606.02 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, all aircraft owners are required to subscribe for public liability insurance coverage. Transport Canada is proposing that there be no public liability insurance requirement for the lower threshold category of UAV.

The department is seeking comment on this proposal.

8. SPECIAL FLIGHT OPERATIONS CERTIFICATE
Since the proposed rule does not abolish the Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC) process, the existing requirement for an SFOC for UAV operations will be retained. The SFOC will be available to UAV operators for all other types of UAV operations that are not captured by the proposed rule (e.g. testing and development flights in restricted airspace test sites, UAVs larger than 25kgs, beyond visual line-of-sight operations, etc). There may also be individual cases where a UAV operator meets the proposed rule in every respect, but because the operation is so specialized, they would need operational approval through an SFOC. Examples of such operations could include participating in an air show, operating at aerodromes, etc.

9. FOREIGN OPERATORS
As UAVs are considered aircraft, this proposal would maintain consistency with current rules pertaining to aircraft registration eligibility by limiting operation to Canadian citizens/corporations, except through an SFOC. This could affect foreign UAV operators operating small UAVs. However, it is also proposed that this restriction would not apply to UAVs within the Very Small (lower threshold) UAV category, allowing a foreign UAV operator to operate a very small UAV in Canada. In light of the global context in which there is a growing potential for UAVs in a variety of applications, Transport Canada will need to consider trade-related implications of UAV operations.

UNTIL AUGUST 28, 2015, COMMENTS ON THIS NOTICE MAY BE ADDRESSED, IN WRITING, TO: [email protected]
Note: after this date, Transport Canada will not consider comments for further revisions to the regulations and standards.

ANNEX A:
PROPOSED REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
In 2016, Transport Canada intends to introduce regulatory requirements for UAVs 25kgs or less that are operated within visual line-of-sight. The proposed regulatory amendments to the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) are intended to ensure the safe and reliable operation of UAVs in Canadian airspace. Transport Canada also intends to preserve the SFOC process to focus on higher risk operations that are not covered by the proposed regulations, including UAVs larger than 25kgs and those operated beyond visual line-of-sight.

Very Small UAVs Small UAVs
(Limited Operations) Small UAVs
(Complex Operations)
Aircraft Requirements
Identification  X X
Marking and Registration X  
Design Standard X  
Pilot Requirements
Age Restrictions X  
Knowledge Test 
(Basic) 
(Basic) 
(Advanced)
Pilot Permit X X 
Respect for Privacy and Other Laws   
Permission to Fly
At night X X 
In proximity to an aerodrome X X 
Within 9 km of a built-up area  X 
Over people X X 
Liability Insurance X  
Operator Certificate *   
*Operator certificates are reserved for larger operators with numerous employees, employees involved in commercial enterprises, or companies with a larger scope of operations.

Operations with Very Small UAVs / Lower threshold
Transport Canada is considering whether to establish a “lower threshold” or very small UAV category that would be regulated to a lesser extent due to its nature and operating environment, and the lowered risk of damage that the aircraft would cause to a person and property on the ground and other airspace users in case of incident.

It is expected that the vast majority of recreational users would be captured under this category, as well as aerial photography operations for real estate and other small business purposes. As TC expects that all pilots have the requisite knowledge to operate safely, a basic knowledge test would be required, as well as basic identification requirements to assist in accident and enforcement investigations.

Limited Operations with Small UAVs
This category would have less regulatory requirements than complex operations due to their lower-risk profile however they would be limited to more remote areas, resulting in:
• defining specific geographic limitation around where this category of UAV could operate (e.g. specific distances from aerodromes or built-up areas).
• adding restrictions on the operation to ensure that these UAVs would not encroach on areas where the operation would create a greater risk.
The limited operation category is intended to allow operations in remote areas, and would be applicable to agricultural operations, rural aerial surveys, or research in remote and Northern regions.

Complex Operations with Small UAVs
Operating small UAVs under this category would be considered to be the most challenging as it would occur in and around urban or built-up areas and allow operations close to aerodromes. This category would have the most comprehensive set of regulatory requirements which, in turn, would provide for the greatest level of safety and operational flexibility.

The complex operation category is intended to integrate mature UAV pilots into Canadian airspace by allowing operations in more complex environments with comparable requirements to manned aircraft.

Model Aircraft Operations (under a recognized association)
The framework proposes a provision similar to CAR 602.45, which requires operators to use their model aircraft in a way that does not put aviation safety at risk. Operators would be required to fly their model aircraft under a valid membership and guidelines of a national community-based association recognized by Transport Canada whose members have a proven safety record, and follow strong and established safety guidelines.

An alternative approach is also proposed that is based on camera payload, and would require such aircraft to be regulated as UAVs and not model aircraft.

Quick Facts

  • Transport Canada regulates the use of all aircraft, manned and unmanned, to keep the public and our airspace safe.
  • Canada has had safety regulations in place that govern the use of UAVs since 1996.
  • Operators must still apply for a Special Flight Operations Certificate for UAVs weighing more than 25 kg.
  • If a UAV is operated without a Special Flight Operations Certificate and should be, Transport Canada can issue fines of up to $5,000 for an individual and $25,000 for a company.
  • If an operator does not follow the requirements of their Special Flight Operations Certificate, Transport Canada can issue fines of up to $3,000 for an individual and $15,000 for a business.

Supreme Court Decision Will Deny Bail To Protect Public Confidence

Update:

The Supreme Court decision in R. v. St-Cloud, 2015 SCC 27 has set down guidelines for future cases, telling judges that protecting public confidence by denying bail need not wait for exceptional or rare cases.
The Supreme Court decision in R. v. St-Cloud, 2015 SCC 27 has set down guidelines for future cases, telling judges that protecting public confidence by denying bail need not wait for exceptional or rare cases. Supreme Court photo by Sean Kilpatrick Canadian Press.

see source

A Supreme Court of Canada ruling has made it easier for judges to deny accused people bail, at a time when the country’s provincial prisons are bulging with inmates waiting for their trial.

More than half of the country’s 25,000 provincial inmates have not been convicted of a crime, but are simply waiting for a bail hearing or being held until their trial. The provincial corrections system costs $1.9-billion a year.

But the court, perceived by some as soft on crime for its rejection of Conservative crime laws, said Friday that judges have been overly reluctant to deny bail when necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system. Ruling in the case of a 22-year-old Montreal man who, with two other men, was accused of beating a bus driver in 2013, the court said unanimously that keeping him in jail until his trial was vital to preserving public confidence. News media had broadcast a videotape of the vicious beating.

This decision by the highest court in the country, will mean that alot more crown attorney's across the country will make an application to the presiding judge to have bail denied to the accused.  This will result in many more people will have to sit in jail until their trial date.
This decision by the highest court in the country, will mean that alot more crown attorney’s/prosecutors across the country will make an application to the presiding judge to have bail denied to the accused. This will result in many more people having to sit in jail until their final trial date.

And the court set down guidelines for future cases, telling judges that protecting public confidence by denying bail need not wait for exceptional or rare cases.

“If they make it easier to detain people, more people will be detained,” Toronto lawyer John Norris, who represented the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, an intervenor in the case, said in an interview.

There are three grounds for denying bail to an accused person in Canada: protecting public safety; ensuring the individual shows up for trial; and maintaining public confidence. A Justice of the Peace had rejected Jeffrey St-Cloud’s request to be freed on bail, and a second judge, after Mr. St-Cloud’s preliminary inquiry, also rejected his request. Both judges cited the need to maintain public confidence. But then Mr. St-Cloud appealed to a higher court and was released on bail.

Police picked Mr. St.-Cloud up Friday morning, after the ruling, and took him back to jail. He had been free for the past 20 months. His trial starts next January. “A lot of people will lose the right to be free while waiting for trial. It’s a big, big change in the philosophy of criminal law in Canada,” André Lapointe, a lawyer representing Mr. St-Cloud, said in an interview.

Justice Richard Wagner, who wrote the ruling, stressed the importance of giving meaning to Parliament’s choice to protect public confidence. He came to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s attention as a candidate for the Supreme Court, a source said, when he wrote a 2012 ruling while on the Quebec Court of Appeal denying bail (in order to preserve public confidence) to Jacques Delisle, a former Quebec judge who was hoping to appeal his conviction for murdering his wife.

In a long explanation of who the “public” is, Justice Wagner quoted former chief justice Antonio Lamer, who referred to the “reasonable person,” described as the “average person in the community, but only when that community’s current mood is reasonable.” He also quoted from a 1990 Quebec appeal court ruling that warned of a tendency of the public to become emotional about crime.

More than half of the country’s 25,000 provincial inmates have not been convicted of a crime, but are simply waiting for a bail hearing or being held until their trial. The provincial corrections system costs $1.9-billion a year. This decision by the Supreme Court will result in a greater number of men/women placed in prison, pending their trial.
More than half of the country’s 25,000 provincial inmates have not been convicted of a crime, but are simply waiting for a bail hearing or being held until their trial. The provincial corrections system costs $1.9-billion a year. This decision (R. v. St-Cloud, 2015 SCC 27) by the Supreme Court will result in a greater number of men/women placed in prison, pending their trial.

In the end, he said, judges must be “sensitive to the perceptions of people who are reasonable and well informed. This enables the courts to act both as watchdogs against mob justice and as guardians of public confidence in our justice system.”

He said some judges had misinterpreted a previous Supreme Court ruling denying bail to a man who had inexplicably murdered a woman and intended to behead her. Crimes do not need to be heinous or unexplainable to put public confidence at risk. In fact, he said, any crime can qualify, and judges should consider whether it was a crime against a vulnerable person, or committed by someone who belongs to a criminal organization.

In general, he said the law requires judges to consider the strength of the prosecution’s case and the seriousness and circumstances of the crime, including whether a firearm was involved.

William Trudell, chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, said the ruling reads almost like a “defence of presumptive detention.”

Here is the law that was reviewed by the Supreme Court in the decision (R. v. St-Cloud, 2015 SCC 27) described hereinabove:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46 

  1. . . .

(10) For the purposes of this section, the detention of an accused in custody is justified only on one or more of the following grounds:

(a) where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court in order to be dealt with according to law;

(b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public, including any victim of or witness to the offence, or any person under the age of 18 years, having regard to all the circumstances including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice; and

(c) if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including

(i) the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case,

(ii) the gravity of the offence,

(iii) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used, and

(iv) the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment or, in the case of an offence that involves, or whose subject‑matter is, a firearm, a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years or more.

  1. (1) If the prosecutor or the accused intends to show cause under section 515, he or she shall so state to the justice and the justice may, and shall on application by the accused, before or at any time during the course of the proceedings under that section, make an order directing that the evidence taken, the information given or the representations made and the reasons, if any, given or to be given by the justice shall not be published in any document, or broadcast or transmitted in any way before such time as

. . .

(b) if the accused in respect of whom the proceedings are held is tried or ordered to stand trial, the trial is ended.

  1. (1) If a justice, or a judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice, makes an order under subsection 515(2), (5), (6) , (7) , (8)  or (12)  or makes or vacates any order under paragraph 523(2) (b), the accused may, at any time before the trial of the charge, apply to a judge for a review of the order.

(2) An application under this section shall not, unless the prosecutor otherwise consents, be heard by a judge unless the accused has given to the prosecutor at least two clear days notice in writing of the application.

(3) If the judge so orders or the prosecutor or the accused or his counsel so requests, the accused shall be present at the hearing of an application under this section and, where the accused is in custody, the judge may order, in writing, the person having the custody of the accused to bring him before the court.

(4) A judge may, before or at any time during the hearing of an application under this section, on application by the prosecutor or the accused, adjourn the proceedings, but if the accused is in custody no adjournment shall be for more than three clear days except with the consent of the accused.

(5) Where an accused, other than an accused who is in custody, has been ordered by a judge to be present at the hearing of an application under this section and does not attend the hearing, the judge may issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused.

(6) A warrant issued under subsection (5) may be executed anywhere in Canada.

(7) On the hearing of an application under this section, the judge may consider

(a) the transcript, if any, of the proceedings heard by the justice and by any judge who previously reviewed the order made by the justice,

(b) the exhibits, if any, filed in the proceedings before the justice, and

(c) such additional evidence or exhibits as may be tendered by the accused or the prosecutor,

and shall either

(d) dismiss the application, or

(e) if the accused shows cause, allow the application, vacate the order previously made by the justice and make any other order provided for in section 515 that he considers is warranted.

(8) Where an application under this section or section 521  has been heard, a further or other application under this section or section 521  shall not be made with respect to that same accused, except with leave of a judge, prior to the expiration of thirty days from the date of the decision of the judge who heard the previous application.

(9) The provisions of sections 517 , 518  and 519  apply with such modifications as the circumstances require in respect of an application under this section.

  1. (1) If a justice, or a judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice, makes an order under subsection 515(1), (2), (7) , (8)  or (12)  or makes or vacates any order under paragraph 523(2) (b), the prosecutor may, at any time before the trial of the charge, apply to a judge for a review of the order.

(2) An application under this section shall not be heard by a judge unless the prosecutor has given to the accused at least two clear days notice in writing of the application.

(3) If the judge so orders or the prosecutor or the accused or his counsel so requests, the accused shall be present at the hearing of an application under this section and, where the accused is in custody, the judge may order, in writing, the person having the custody of the accused to bring him before the court.

(4) A judge may, before or at any time during the hearing of an application under this section, on application of the prosecutor or the accused, adjourn the proceedings, but if the accused is in custody no adjournment shall be for more than three clear days except with the consent of the accused.

(5) Where an accused, other than an accused who is in custody, has been ordered by a judge to be present at the hearing of an application under this section and does not attend the hearing, the judge may issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused.

(6) Where, pursuant to paragraph (8)(e), the judge makes an order that the accused be detained in custody until he is dealt with according to law, he shall, if the accused is not in custody, issue a warrant for the committal of the accused.

(7) A warrant issued under subsection (5) or (6) may be executed anywhere in Canada.

(8) On the hearing of an application under this section, the judge may consider

(a) the transcript, if any, of the proceedings heard by the justice and by any judge who previously reviewed the order made by the justice,

(b) the exhibits, if any, filed in the proceedings before the justice, and

(c) such additional evidence or exhibits as may be tendered by the prosecutor or the accused,

and shall either

(d) dismiss the application, or

(e) if the prosecutor shows cause, allow the application, vacate the order previously made by the justice and make any other order provided for in section 515 that he considers to be warranted.

(9) Where an application under this section or section 520  has been heard, a further or other application under this section or section 520  shall not be made with respect to the same accused, except with leave of a judge, prior to the expiration of thirty days from the date of the decision of the judge who heard the previous application.

(10) The provisions of sections 517 , 518  and 519  apply with such modifications as the circumstances require in respect of an application under this section.