Impaired Driver Receives Life Sentence after 19th Impaired Driving Conviction.

Update:

On October 23, 1961 Anee Khudaverdian was born. During her infancy she contracted Polio and as a result, lost the use of her legs. Bound to a wheelchair, Ms. Khudaverdian continued her life. In 2001 she gave birth to her daughter, Hailey.

On October 23, 2008 56 year old Roger Walsh, who had had his share of troubles, decided to take his spouse’s motor vehicle (a Dodge Caravan) while she was incapacitated in the hospital. The court’s had ordered in 2005 that he could not drink, due to an impaired driving conviction.

Ms. Khudaverdian celebrated her 47 th birthday on October 23, 2008 and decided that she would take her dog for a walk, while using her wheelchair in Les Cedres.

While she was out with her dog, Mr. Roger Walsh, who was intoxicated behind the wheel of his spouse’s Dodge Caravan, ploughed into Ms. Khudaverdian’s wheelchair which ended her life. Mr. Walsh didn’t stop, he didn’t even brake, he just kept going, as Ms. Khudaverdian lay in a ditch. Mr. Walsh was discovered by police eight (8) kilometres away, when the Caravan he drove, also ended up in a ditch. When police investigated further, it was found that Mr. Walsh’s blood-alcohol level was over twice that of the legal limit.

As a result of the hit and run, Mr. Roger Walsh, a St. Lazare resident, was charged with several charges under the Criminal Code.

In December, 2008 in a Salaberry-de-Valleyfield court room in Quebec, presided over by Judge Michel Mercier, Mr. Welsh pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death, leaving the scene of a fatal accident and violating a court order that prohibited him from drinking.

57 year old Mr. Walsh, who had been binge drinking, killed 47 year old Ms. Anee Khudaverdian on October 23, 2008 with the motor vehicle he operated and then had sped away.

The Crown, Mr. Joey Dubois, informed the court that Roger Walsh had eighteen (18) previous convictions related to impaired driving before this incident, as well his total of 114 convictions.  He asked Judge Mercier to declare Mr. Walsh a “Dangerous Offender” pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Walsh’s defence lawyer, Mr. Jacques Vinet, objected to this request, reminding the Judge that this declaration is normally reserved for repeat Sex Offenders and that the psychiatrist that examined Mr. Walsh, noted that he only had a moderate risk of reoffending. Mr. Walsh’s defence lawyer, Jacques Vinet suggested a ten (10) year for a sentence for his client.

Yesterday, September 9, 2009 in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Quebec, when Judge Michel Mercier read from his seven (7) page decision, he rejected the Crown’s request to declare Mr. Walsh a Dangerous Offender, but instead, did what is believed to have never been done before in Canada, sentenced Mr, Roger Walsh to a life sentence.

Prosecutors have now tried on three (3) separate occasions – including in Ontario and Alberta – but no Canadian judge has ever been persuaded to classify a driver, convicted for impaired driving,  a “Dangerous Offender” under the 2008 amendment to the Criminal Code.

Judge Mercier looked at Mr. Walsh during the sentencing stage of the trial and referred to him as “incorrigible” and said that he should not have been drinking the night that Ms. Anee Khudaverdian died. Mr. Walsh is eligible for parole in ten (10) years.
Stories from the Montreal Gazette (Hit & Run driver agrees to Psychiatric Exam, Dangerous Offender Status, Roger Walsh gets “Life“, Roger Walsh )

Ford Bronco owners most likely to have prior DUI’s on their driving records.

Impaired Driver makes amends.

Hit and Run driver who killed a young, 13 year old girl, Carley Regan, while she was rollerblading near her Aldergrove home, in British Columbia on January 6, 2003 is prohibited from driving or possessing a driver’s licence for 10 years. See story.

Kingston, Ontario driver, who was convicted of five (5) impaired driving charges, loses driver’s licence for life, imposed not by the Courts, but by the Ministry of Transportation.

Update: January 5, 2010 – between Nov.27/09 to Jan.4/10 over 1 million (1,174,224) motorists were pulled over by the OPP’s R.I.D.E and 298 driver’s were charged with impaired driving and 5,031 other charges were laid during this passage of time.  See the O.P.P’s January 4, 2010 news release.

Ontario’s “Commerical Vehicle Impoundment Program”(CVIP)

Update:

The Ontario Provincial Government introduced legislation named “Suspension and Impoundment of Commercial Motor Vehicles for Critical Defects Under Section 82.1 of the Act, O. Reg. 512/97” which came into force on February 2, 1998.

Relying on this legislation, the Provincial Government introduced the Commercial Vehicle Impoundment Program or “CVIP“.

This legislation was meant to target unsafe commerical vehicles on the highways and roads of Ontario.

Yesterday the Ontario Court of Appeal released an important ruling in the following case: R. v. Quality Carriers Inc., 2009 ONCA 523 (CanLII) here is what the Court of Appeal said in this case:

“The facts on which the prosecution was based are not in dispute.  On July 20, 2006, the respondent Randy Banning was operating a tractor and two-axle trailer owned by the respondent Quality Carriers Inc. on Highway 401 near London, Ontario.  There is no doubt that this is a commercial motor vehicle for the purposes of the Act.  Pursuant to instructions, Mr. Banning pulled the vehicle into a weigh station where it was inspected by a Ministry of Transportation officer.  The officer found that, for all four brakes on the trailer, the push rod travel out of the service brake chamber exceeded that permitted by s. 7(2)(4) of O. Reg. 512/97.  As a result, the trailer was impounded for 15 days under s. 82.1 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act. Thereafter, both the driver and the owner were charged under s. 84. (1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The respondents were charged with violating s. 84(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8. That section prohibits driving or operating a vehicle in such a dangerous or unsafe condition as to endanger any person.  Section 84(1.1) provides that if a commercial motor vehicle has a critical defect “as prescribed by regulation” it is deemed to be in such a dangerous or unsafe condition as to endanger any person.

At trial the respondents’ commercial motor vehicle was shown to have defects which are designated by regulation as “a critical defect for the purposes of s. 82.1 of the Act.”  There is no counterpart regulation designating the defects in the respondent’s vehicle as critical defects for the purposes of s. 82 of the Act. There was no other evidence that the respondent’s vehicle was in such a dangerous or unsafe condition as to endanger any person.

The respondents were acquitted at trial because the trial judge concluded that the regulation defining critical defects for the purposes of s. 82.1 means what it says, and does not apply to s. 84 of the Act.  That decision was upheld on appeal.  With leave, the Crown appeals to this court.  For the reasons that follow, I would dismiss the appeal.

Section 82 has also been in the Act for a number of years and deals with vehicles found to be “in a dangerous or unsafe condition”.  Sections 82(2) and (5) permit a police officer or other officer to order a vehicle found to be in a dangerous or unsafe condition removed from the highway and not operated until placed in a safe condition

On the same date, February 2, 1998, O. Reg. 512/97 came into force.  It is entitled “Suspension and Impoundment of Commercial Motor Vehicles for Critical Defects Under s. 82.1 of The Act”.  Section 7(2) of that regulation defines the kinds of defects in a brake system that constitute a critical defect for the purposes of s. 82.1.  In part, it says:

A commercial motor vehicle or trailer, if the trailer is required by subsection 64(5) of the Act to have brakes, equipped with an air brake system other than an air-over-hydraulic brake system has a critical defect for the purposes of section 82.1 of the Act if one or more of the following defects is present on more than 50 per cent of the wheel brakes of the vehicle.

4.  The push rod travel out of the service brake chamber is ¼ inch (6.3 mm) or more beyond the measurement listed in Column 2 of Schedule 1 for the type of chamber listed in Column 1 of Schedule 1 if the brake is cam or disc type.  [Emphasis added.]

Effective the same day, February 2, 1998, s. 84(1.1) was added to s. 84, the offence section set out above.  It reads:

If a commercial motor vehicle or trailer has one or more critical defect, as prescribed by regulation, it shall be deemed to be in such a dangerous or unsafe condition as to endanger any person.  [Emphasis added.]

At trial, there was evidence of the push rod travel defects in the brakes, but no evidence that this actually affected the braking capacity of the vehicle.

The Justice of the Peace concluded that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, a defect deemed by regulation to be a critical defect for the purposes of s. 82.1 of the Act is not thereby deemed to be a critical defect for the purposes of s. 84(1.1).  There being no other evidence that the vehicle was dangerous or unsafe, she acquitted both respondents.  Her decision was upheld by the Ontario Court of Justice.

Section 7(2) of that regulation explicitly provides that it prescribes what is to be a critical defect “for the purposes of s. 82.1 of the Act”.  The title of the regulation itself (“Suspension and Impoundment of Commercial Motor Vehicles for Critical Defects Under s. 82.1 of The Act”) confirms this.  This language can only mean that the prescription of what is a critical defect applies just to s. 82.1 of the Act.  That was the clear intention of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Moreover, there is nothing in the language of s. 84(1.1) to suggest that the intention of the Legislature was to have what was prescribed by regulation as a critical defect for s. 82.1 also be a critical defect for s. 84(1.1).  Quite the reverse.  Under s. 82.1(6) a critical defect causes a vehicle to be deemed in a dangerous or unsafe condition. Under s. 84(1.1), on the other hand, a critical defect causes a vehicle to be deemed in such a dangerous or unsafe condition as to endanger any person.  This suggests a legislative intent that a critical defect under s. 84(1.1) is something more than a critical defect under s. 82.1.  In other words, they are not to be equated.  Nor does a reading of Hansard, where the focus was entirely on the new scheme for impoundment and not the offence provisions, suggest a legislative intent that the same conduct should attract both the sanctions of impoundment and conviction.

In providing that O. Reg. 512/97 applies only to s. 82.1, the Lieutenant Governor in Council acted consistently with the legislative intention reflected in s. 82.1 and s. 84(1.1).  That intention is that, unlike s. 82.1(6), s. 84(1.1) encompasses serious critical defects sufficient to render a vehicle in such a dangerous or unsafe condition as to endanger any person.  The differing purposes of s. 82.1 and s. 84(1.1) explain why the prescribed list of critical defects for one cannot be taken as the prescribed list for the other.  It also explains why the regulation does not contravene the rule favouring consistent expression.

In summary, I conclude that the regulation relied on by the Crown does not apply to s. 84(1.1).  Given the absence of other evidence, the charges were properly dismissed.  The appeal is dismissed.”

RELEASED:  June 26, 2009  “DOC”

“S.T. Goudge J.A.”

“I agree D. O’Connor A.C.J.O.”

“I agree M. Rosenberg J.A.”

In other words, you can’t apply standards of section 82 of the HTA to charges under section 84 of the HTA and expect them to be respected. The Highway Traffic Act‘s section 82 is section 82 and section 84 is section 84 and both contain different standards to be applied.

———————————————————————————

The following is from the Provincial Goverment’s Ministry of Transporation’s (“MTO”) website and describes the way the MOT interprets this legislation:

Introduction:

On February 2, 1998, the government of Ontario introduced the Commercial Vehicle Impoundment Program as part of its aggressive campaign to improve commercial vehicle safety in this province. This program was a principle recommendation of Target ’97, a joint industry/government task force which has worked together closely to improve truck safety in Ontario. Ontario is the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce impoundment for seriously unsafe trucks, buses and trailers.

What is Commercial Vehicle Impoundment (CVIP)?

Commercial Vehicle Impoundment is part of a progressive enforcement program where critically defective commercial vehicles are impounded for a minimum of 15 days. Ontario is the first jurisdiction in North America to impound commercial vehicles for critical defects.

If one or more critical defects are found on a bus, truck or trailer, an officer will remove the plates and inspection stickers from the specific vehicle unit. Vehicles will not be impounded for failing to meet Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) out-of-service standards. A vehicle found with a critical defect would be in much worse condition than a vehicle placed out-of-service.

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles (Registrar) issues an order to impound the vehicle and suspend the vehicle registration. The vehicle’s load will be removed at the inspection location and the vehicle will be transported, by a third party contractor, to a secure impound facility.

The vehicle must remain at the impound facility for the designated period. The owner may claim the vehicle after all costs associated with the towing, removal and impoundment of the vehicle have been paid. The vehicle must then be certified as safe before it can be operated in Ontario. Vehicle repairs can only be conducted at a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station following removal from impound. Commercial vehicles abandoned at impound facilities will be disposed of under the provisions of the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

Who does this program affect?

Any commercial vehicle that is operated by a Commercial Vehicle Operator’s Registration (CVOR) or National Safety Code (NSC) holder or one that would require CVOR or NSC registration and has a gross weight or registered gross weight exceeding 4,500 kg may be subject to impound if it is operated with critical defects. This includes buses, trucks, and trailers drawn by these vehicles.

Who is exempt from this program?

Ambulances, fire vehicles, hearses, casket wagons, mobile cranes, motor homes and tow trucks are not affected by this legislation.

What is a critical defect?

The critical defect criteria set out very clear guidelines for determining when defects are serious enough to be considered critical to the safe operation of a commercial vehicle or trailer. Critical defect criteria have been developed for brakes, wheels and rims, steering, tires and suspension/frame components.

Commercial vehicles would be in a significantly greater state of disrepair when impounded for critical defects than they would be when taken out-of-service for failing to meet international standards set by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA). For example, a vehicle is placed out-of-service if 20 per cent or more of its wheels have brake defects. However, this defect would be considered critical if more than 50 per cent of its wheels have brake defects.

The critical defect criteria, which were developed by government and industry, are defined in Regulation 512/97 of the Highway Traffic Act (HTA). Copies of the regulations are available on the web site in Ontario Statutes and Regulations found at www.e-laws.gov.on.ca.

Where are inspections for critical defects and impoundment being conducted?

Inspections for critical defects and impoundment are being done at specified truck inspection stations across the province. These stations have been selected based on their strategic location and their exposure to high volumes of commercial traffic.

The impoundment program will be expanded to incorporate other truck inspection stations and mobile enforcement units over time. It is intended that impoundment will eventually take place across Ontario.

How will inspections for critical defects and impoundment affect buses?

Buses, including school buses and motor coaches, are commercial vehicles and are subject to impoundment. Critical defects on buses will be detected at special blitzes held at selected inspection locations.

What are the consequences of having a commercial vehicle impounded?

After the vehicle is inspected and found to have critical defects, charges are laid against the owner and/or operator (truck or bus company) and/or driver. The vehicle is then impounded for a prescribed period. Before the impounded vehicle is removed from the inspection site, it must be off-loaded, repaired and put in a safe condition for towing. Vehicles that cannot be made safe for towing must be placed on a flat bed trailer and floated to the impound facility.

The impoundment period is 15 days for the first incident within a 2 year period. A second incident within 2 years will result in a 30 day impoundment period. A third or subsequent incident within 2 years carries a 60 day impoundment period.

The operator will be charged with “operating an unsafe vehicle” and is responsible for all costs associated with the removal, transfer and storage of the load.

The owner may be charged and is liable for the fees and costs associated with towing and impoundment and cannot use the vehicle for doing business during the impoundment period.

The driver may also be subject to charges.

Fines for safety related offences are set out in the Provincial Offences Act and may be as high as $20,000.

When the impound period is complete, the vehicle is released by the Registrar and must be towed or floated to a qualified repair facility. The vehicle cannot be driven on any Ontario road until a Safety Standards Certificate has been issued. Only then will plates and permits be reissued for the vehicle.

How much does impoundment cost?

The fees charged for towing, floating, storage of vehicles and goods, and the transfer of loads are established in contracts between the Ministry and impound facilities.

Although a reasonable fee schedule has been established, fees may be higher where towing distances are longer or in urban areas where commercial property costs may be higher.

This is a user pay system whereby the impound facility is paid directly by the owner/operator responsible for the vehicle and load.

Where are impoundment facilities located?

Impound facilities are located within a reasonable towing distance of the inspection location they serve. One impound facility may provide service to more than one inspection location if the facility is in close proximity to multiple inspection sites.

Impound facilities are selected based on their ability to provide secure, reliable service at a reasonable cost.

What happens to the load?

All impounded vehicles must be off-loaded at the inspection site. The load must be transferred to another truck or trailer.

The transfer of loads and loss of perishable cargo is the responsibility of the operator of the vehicle. Where buses are impounded, the operator is responsible for providing alternate transportation.

Can an impoundment be appealed?

The owner of the vehicle is the only party who can appeal the impoundment. An appeal may be made to the Licence Appeal Tribunal on one of two grounds:
1. If the vehicle was stolen.
2. If the critical defect was not present at the time of the inspection.

During the appeal, the owner may apply to the Superior Court of Justice to have the vehicle released from the impound facility after all impound fees and towing charges have been paid and security has been posted. The Superior Court of Justice will set security of between $5,000 and $10,000.

If the appeal is successful, the owner will be reimbursed by the crown for the cost of towing and impound fees for the vehicle.

If the Order to Impound and Suspend is not overturned, the owner must return the vehicle to the impound facility for the remainder of the impoundment period or forfeit the posted security.

Appeals will be conducted orally unless a written hearing is requested and agreed upon. Hearings will be heard as quickly as possible and decided on within 30 days where required. Appeals may be heard in numerous locations across Ontario.

How does impoundment affect a CVOR record?

The impoundment event will be recorded on the operator’s CVOR record.

Section 82.1 of the Highway Traffic Act

Here is what the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) states, with regard to Suspension and Impoundment of Commercial Motor Vehicles for Critical Defects Under Section 82.1 of the Act, O. Reg. 512/97:

Inspections, unsafe commercial motor vehicles

82.1 (1) In this section,

“commercial motor vehicle” has the same meaning as in subsection 16 (1); (“véhicule utilitaire”)

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (1) is amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 2009, chapter 5, subsection 33 (1) by adding the following definition:

“designated inspection station” means any location designated by the Registrar for the purpose of inspecting commercial motor vehicles; (“centre d’inspection désigné”)

See: 2009, c. 5, ss. 33 (1), 59 (2).

“operator” means,

(a) the person directly or indirectly responsible for the operation of a commercial motor vehicle, including the conduct of the driver of, and the carriage of goods or passengers, if any, in, the commercial motor vehicle or combination of vehicles, and

(b) in the absence of evidence to the contrary, where no CVOR certificate, as defined in subsection 16 (1), or lease applicable to a commercial motor vehicle, is produced, the holder of the plate portion of the permit for the commercial motor vehicle; (“utilisateur”)

“owner” means the person whose name appears on the certificate of registration for the vehicle, and, where the certificate of registration for the vehicle consists of a vehicle portion and plate portion, means the person whose name appears on the vehicle portion; (“propriétaire”)

“permit” means the permit issued under subsection 7 (7). (“certificat d’immatriculation”) 1997, c. 12, s. 10; 2002, c. 18, Sched. P, s. 23.

Commercial motor vehicles ordered to stop for inspection

(2) In exercising his or her powers under section 82, a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act may, at any time, require the driver of a commercial motor vehicle being driven on a highway to stop for inspection and the driver of the vehicle, when signalled or requested to stop by the officer, who is readily identifiable as such, shall immediately come to a safe stop. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Direction to move vehicle to another location

(3) A police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act may, at any time before, during or after inspecting a commercial motor vehicle or trailer, direct the driver of the commercial motor vehicle to drive it and to draw the attached trailer, if any, to another location where the inspection will be carried out or continued or the vehicle’s load will be removed, or any of them. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Inspection

(4) The police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act may, at the location where the commercial motor vehicle was first stopped or at the location to which it was directed, inspect the commercial motor vehicle and its trailer for critical defects. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Driver, person in charge, to assist inspector

(5) The driver and any other person in charge of the commercial motor vehicle who is present shall assist the police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act in his or her inspection of the commercial motor vehicle and its trailer. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

If critical defect found

(6) If the police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act finds that the commercial motor vehicle or trailer has one or more critical defect, the vehicle shall be deemed to have been found to be in dangerous or unsafe condition under section 82, but instead of exercising the powers set out in subsections 82 (2) and (5), he or she shall forthwith,

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (6) is amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1999, chapter 12, Schedule R, subsection 15 (1) by striking out “subsections 82 (2) and (5)” and substituting “section 82”. See: 1999, c. 12, Sched. R, ss. 15 (1), 21.

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, the Statutes of Ontario, 1999, chapter 12, Schedule R, subsection 15 (1) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2009, chapter 5, subsection 57 (2). See: 2009, c. 5, ss. 57 (2), 59 (2).

(a) notify the Registrar of the findings or cause the Registrar to be notified;

(b) seize the number plates of the vehicle that has the critical defect or defects and remove its vehicle inspection sticker or comparable device issued by another jurisdiction; and

(c) detain the vehicle that has the critical defect or defects until the Registrar issues an order under subsection (7). 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (6) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2009, chapter 5, subsection 33 (2) and the following substituted:

If critical defect found

(6) If the police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act inspects the commercial motor vehicle and its trailer at a designated inspection station and finds that the commercial motor vehicle or trailer has one or more critical defects, the vehicle shall be deemed to have been found to be in dangerous or unsafe condition under section 82, but instead of exercising the powers set out in section 82, the police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act shall forthwith,

(a) seize the number plates of the vehicle that has the critical defect or defects and remove its vehicle inspection sticker or comparable device issued by another jurisdiction; and

(b) detain the vehicle that has the critical defect or defects. 2009, c. 5, s. 33 (2).

See: 2009, c. 5, ss. 33 (2), 59 (2).

Order to impound and suspend or to release

(7) Upon notification under subsection (6), the Registrar may, without a hearing, issue an order to release the vehicle or issue an order to impound the vehicle and suspend the vehicle portion of its permit as follows:

1. For 15 days, if the vehicle has not previously been impounded under this section within a prescribed period.

2. For 30 days, if the vehicle has been impounded once under this section within a prescribed period.

3. For 60 days, if the vehicle has been impounded two or more times under this section within a prescribed period. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (7) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2009, chapter 5, subsection 33 (2) and the following substituted:

Impoundment

(7) Once the load, if any, has been removed as may be required by subsection (15), (16), (17) or (18), the detained vehicle shall, at the cost and risk of the owner,

(a) be removed to an impound facility as directed by a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act; and

(b) be impounded from the time it was detained for the period described in subsection (8) or until ordered to be released by the Registrar under subsection (23) or (24) or under section 50.3. 2009, c. 5, s. 33 (2).

See: 2009, c. 5, ss. 33 (2), 59 (2).

Permit suspended

(8) Upon issuing an order to impound and suspend under subsection (7), the Registrar shall suspend the vehicle portion of the permit of the vehicle that is subject to the order, and the suspension shall be effective when the order is issued. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (8) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2009, chapter 5, subsection 33 (2) and the following substituted:

Impound period

(8) A vehicle detained under subsection (6) shall be impounded as follows:

1. For 15 days, if the vehicle has not previously been impounded under this section within a prescribed period.

2. For 30 days, if the vehicle has previously been impounded once under this section within a prescribed period.

3. For 60 days, if the vehicle has previously been impounded two or more times under this section within a prescribed period. 2009, c. 5, s. 33 (2).

See: 2009, c. 5, ss. 33 (2), 59 (2).

Intent of order to impound and suspend

(9) The order to impound and suspend issued under this section is intended to promote compliance with the safety standards set out in and under this Act and to thereby safeguard the public and does not constitute an alternative to any proceeding or penalty arising from the same circumstances or around the same time. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (9) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2009, chapter 5, subsection 33 (2) and the following substituted:

Release of vehicle

(9) Subject to subsection (20), the vehicle shall be released to its owner from the impound facility upon the expiry of the period of the impoundment or upon being ordered to be released by the Registrar under subsection (23) or (24) or under section 50.3. 2009, c. 5, s. 33 (2).

See: 2009, c. 5, ss. 33 (2), 59 (2).

Registrar to notify officer

(10) The Registrar shall notify a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act of an order made under subsection (7) and shall send a copy of the order to the owner and operator of the commercial motor vehicle at the most recent address for them appearing in the records of the Ministry. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (10) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2009, chapter 5, subsection 33 (2) and the following substituted:

Duty of officer re impoundment

(10) Every officer who detains a vehicle under this section shall, as soon as practicable,

(a) prepare a notice identifying the vehicle that is to be impounded, the name and address of the driver, the date and time of the impoundment, the period of time for which the vehicle is impounded and the place where the vehicle may be recovered;

(b) serve the driver with a copy of the notice; and

(c) forward a copy of the notice to the Registrar. 2009, c. 5, s. 33 (2).

See: 2009, c. 5, ss. 33 (2), 59 (2).

Release of vehicle

(11) Upon notification of the Registrar’s order to release the vehicle, a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act shall forthwith release the vehicle to its owner, whereupon the provisions of section 82 apply. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (11) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2009, chapter 5, subsection 33 (2) and the following substituted:

Service on driver is deemed service on owner and operator

(11) Service of a copy of a notice of the impoundment on the driver of the vehicle under clause (10) (b) is deemed to be service on and sufficient notice to the owner and operator of the vehicle. 2009, c. 5, s. 33 (2).

See: 2009, c. 5, ss. 33 (2), 59 (2).

Service of order to impound and suspend

(12) Upon notification of the Registrar’s order to impound and suspend, a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act shall serve the order or notice of it on the driver of the vehicle. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (12) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2009, chapter 5, subsection 33 (2) and the following substituted:

Permit suspended

(12) Upon being notified under clause (10) (c), the Registrar may issue an order to suspend the vehicle portion of the permit for the impounded vehicle by mailing it to the owner and operator of the commercial motor vehicle at the most recent address for them appearing in the records of the Ministry, and upon issuing such an order, the Registrar shall suspend the vehicle portion of the permit of the vehicle, and the suspension shall be effective when the order is issued. 2009, c. 5, s. 33 (2).

See: 2009, c. 5, ss. 33 (2), 59 (2).

Service on driver is deemed service on owner and operator

(13) Service of the order, or notice of it, on the driver of the commercial motor vehicle shall be deemed to be service on and sufficient notice to the operator and owner of the commercial motor vehicle and trailer. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (13) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2009, chapter 5, subsection 33 (2) and the following substituted:

Notice by Registrar

(13) The Registrar may provide notice of the impoundment to the owner and operator of the vehicle by mailing it to them at the latest address for them appearing in the records of the Ministry. 2009, c. 5, s. 33 (2).

See: 2009, c. 5, ss. 33 (2), 59 (2).

Surrender of documents, information re trip and goods carried

(14) If the commercial motor vehicle or trailer that is the subject of the order to impound and suspend contains goods, the police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act may require the driver and any other person present who is in charge of the vehicle to surrender all documents in his or her possession or in the vehicle that relate to the operation of the vehicle or to the carriage of the goods and to furnish all information within that person’s knowledge relating to the details of the current trip and the ownership of the goods. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (14) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2009, chapter 5, subsection 33 (2) and the following substituted:

Surrender of documents, information re trip and goods carried

(14) If the commercial motor vehicle or trailer that is to be impounded contains goods, the police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act may require the driver and any other person present who is in charge of the vehicle to surrender all documents in his or her possession or in the vehicle that relate to the operation of the vehicle or to the carriage of the goods and to furnish all information within that person’s knowledge relating to the details of the current trip and the ownership of the goods. 2009, c. 5, s. 33 (2).

See: 2009, c. 5, ss. 33 (2), 59 (2).

Operator to remove load

(15) Upon being served, or being deemed to have been served, with the order to impound and suspend, or notice of it, the operator of the vehicle shall forthwith remove the load from the commercial motor vehicle or trailer, or both, and from the inspection site. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (15) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2009, chapter 5, subsection 33 (2) and the following substituted:

Operator to remove load

(15) Upon being served with notice of the impoundment through service on the driver under subsection (10), the operator of the vehicle shall forthwith remove the load from the commercial motor vehicle or trailer, or both, and from the inspection site. 2009, c. 5, s. 33 (2).

See: 2009, c. 5, ss. 33 (2), 59 (2).

Application of Dangerous Goods Transportation Act

(16) If the goods are dangerous goods, within the meaning of the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act, the operator shall remove them in accordance with that Act. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Officer may remove load at operator’s cost, risk

(17) If, in the opinion of a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act, the operator fails to remove the load as required by subsection (15) within a reasonable time after being served or being deemed to have been served with the order to impound and suspend, or notice of it, the officer may cause the load to be removed and stored or disposed of at the cost and risk of the operator. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (17) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2009, chapter 5, subsection 33 (3) and the following substituted:

Officer may remove load at operator’s cost, risk

(17) If, in the opinion of a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act, the operator fails to remove the load as required by subsection (15) within a reasonable time after being served with notice of the impoundment, the officer may cause the load to be removed and stored or disposed of at the cost and risk of the operator. 2009, c. 5, s. 33 (3).

See: 2009, c. 5, ss. 33 (3), 59 (2).

Same

(18) If the police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act is of the opinion that the operator has not made appropriate arrangements for the removal of the load, having regard to the nature of the goods, including the fact that they are or appear to be dangerous goods, within the meaning of the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act, or are perishable, the officer may cause the load to be removed, stored or otherwise disposed of at the cost and risk of the operator. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Vehicle impounded

(19) Once the load has been removed, the commercial motor vehicle or trailer shall, at the cost and risk of the owner,

(a) be removed to an impound facility as directed by a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act; and

(b) be impounded for the period set out in the order to impound and suspend or until ordered to be released by the Registrar. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (19) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2009, chapter 5, subsection 33 (4). See: 2009, c. 5, ss. 33 (4), 59 (2).

Personal property in vehicle available to owner

(20) Any personal property that is left in the impounded commercial motor vehicle or trailer and that is not attached to or used in connection with its operation shall, upon request and proof of ownership, be made available, at reasonable times, to the owner of the property. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Court application for interim release of vehicle

(21) The owner of a vehicle impounded under this section may, on notice to the Registrar, apply to the Superior Court of Justice for an order directing the Registrar to release the vehicle and reinstate the vehicle portion of its permit. 1997, c. 12, s. 10; 2009, c. 5, s. 33 (5).

Registrar may request to be a party

(22) The Registrar may, on his or her request, be made a party to an application under subsection (21). 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Court order to release vehicle, security required

(23) On an application being made under subsection (21), the court may make the order applied for,

(a) if the owner has also commenced an appeal under section 50.3; and

(b) on condition that the owner deposit with the court security in the prescribed form and in the amount determined by the court, which shall not be less than $5,000 or more than $10,000. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Vehicle released from impound facility

(24) If the court makes the order requested, the Registrar, on being served with a copy of the order by the owner of the vehicle, shall,

(a) order that the vehicle be released to its owner from the impound facility; and

(b) reinstate the vehicle portion of the permit. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Same

(25) If the vehicle remains impounded for the period set out in the order to impound and suspend and no order is made under subsection (24) or if an order is made under subsection (24) but the Registrar later orders the vehicle returned to the impound facility under section 50.3, the Registrar shall, upon the expiry of the period of impoundment or remainder of the period of impoundment,

(a) order that the vehicle be released to its owner from the impound facility; and

(b) reinstate the vehicle portion of the permit. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (25) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2009, chapter 5, subsection 33 (6) and the following substituted:

Same

(25) If an order is made under subsection (24) but the Registrar later orders the vehicle returned to the impound facility under section 50.3, the Registrar shall, upon the expiry of the remainder of the period of impoundment,

(a) order that the vehicle be released to its owner from the impound facility; and

(b) reinstate the vehicle portion of the permit. 2009, c. 5, s. 33 (6).

See: 2009, c. 5, ss. 33 (6), 59 (2).

Owner must pay removal, impound costs

(26) Despite being served with an order under subsection (24) or (25) by the owner of the vehicle, the person who operates the impound facility is not required to release the vehicle to the owner until the owner pays the removal and impound costs related to the Registrar’s order to impound and suspend. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Vehicle cannot be operated until made safe

(27) Despite the release of the vehicle and the reinstatement of the vehicle portion of the permit, no person shall drive or operate the vehicle on a highway until it has been placed in a safe condition. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (27) is amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1999, chapter 12, Schedule R, subsection 15 (3) by striking out “until it has been placed in a safe condition” and substituting “until all defects prescribed under section 82 have been repaired and the vehicle is in a safe condition”. See: 1999, c. 12, Sched. R, ss. 15 (3), 21.

Lien on vehicle for removal, impound costs

(28) The costs incurred by the person who operates the impound facility in respect of an order to impound and suspend under this section are a lien on the vehicle, which may be enforced in the manner provided under Part III of the Repair and Storage Liens Act. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Debt due to Crown

(29) The costs incurred by the Crown in removing, storing or disposing of a load from a commercial motor vehicle or trailer under subsection (17) or (18) are a debt due to the Crown and may be recovered by the Crown in any court of competent jurisdiction. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (29) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2009, chapter 5, subsection 33 (7) and the following substituted:

Debt due to police, Crown

(29) The costs incurred by a police force or the Crown in removing, storing or disposing of a load from a commercial motor vehicle or trailer under subsection (17) or (18) are a debt due to the police force or Crown, as the case may be, and may be recovered by the police force or Crown in any court of competent jurisdiction. 2009, c. 5, s. 33 (7).

See: 2009, c. 5, ss. 33 (7), 59 (2).

Impound, removal service providers are independent contractors

(30) Persons who provide removal services or load removal services or who operate impound facilities, and their subcontractors, are independent contractors and not agents of the Ministry for the purposes of this section; such persons shall not charge more for their services in connection with this section than is permitted by regulation. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Protection from personal liability

(31) No action or other proceeding for damages shall be instituted against the Registrar or any employee of the Ministry for any act done in good faith in the execution or intended execution of his or her duty under this section or for any alleged neglect or default in the execution in good faith of that duty. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Crown not relieved of liability

(32) Despite subsections 5 (2) and (4) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, subsection (31) does not relieve the Crown of liability in respect of a tort committed by a person mentioned in that subsection to which it would otherwise be subject. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Offence

(33) Every person who fails to comply with subsection (2), (5) or (15), or with a requirement or direction of a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act under subsection (3) or (14), is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $20,000 and in addition the person’s driver’s licence may be suspended for a period of not more than six months. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Same

(34) Every person who drives or operates or removes a commercial motor vehicle or trailer that is subject to an order to impound and suspend under this section and every person who causes or permits such a commercial motor vehicle or trailer to be driven, operated or removed is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $20,000. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (34) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2009, chapter 5, subsection 33 (8) and the following substituted:

Same

(34) Every person who drives or operates or removes a commercial motor vehicle or trailer that is impounded under this section and every person who causes or permits such a commercial motor vehicle or trailer to be driven, operated or removed is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $20,000. 2009, c. 5, s. 33 (8).

See: 2009, c. 5, ss. 33 (8), 59 (2).

Same

(35) Every person who provides removal services or who operates an impound facility and who charges fees for services provided in connection with this section in excess of those permitted by regulation is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Same

(36) Every person who obstructs or interferes with a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act in the performance of his or her duties under this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 82.1 is amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 2009, chapter 5, subsection 33 (9) by adding the following subsections:

Intent of impoundment and suspension

(36.1) The impoundment and suspension under this section are intended to promote compliance with the safety standards set out in and under this Act and to thereby safeguard the public and do not constitute an alternative to any proceeding or penalty arising from the same circumstances or around the same time. 2009, c. 5, s. 33 (9).

Impoundment concurrent with other administrative impoundments

(36.2) The impoundment of a commercial motor vehicle under this section runs concurrently with an impoundment, if any, of the same motor vehicle under section 41.4, 48.4, 55.1, 55.2 or 172. 2009, c. 5, s. 33 (9).

See: 2009, c. 5, ss. 33 (9), 59 (2).

Regulations

(37) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

(a) prescribing what constitutes a critical defect;

(b) governing the training and certification of police officers and officers appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act to carry out an inspection under this section;

(c) prescribing inspection procedures, inspection requirements and equipment and performance standards for carrying out inspections under this section;

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (37) is amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 2009, chapter 5, subsection 33 (10) by adding the following clause:

(c.1) requiring police officers to keep records with respect to vehicle impoundments under this section for a specified period of time and to report specified information with respect to vehicle impoundments to the Registrar and governing such records and reports;

See: 2009, c. 5, ss. 33 (10), 59 (2).

(d) prescribing the period for the purpose of subsection (7);

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, clause (d) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2009, chapter 5, subsection 33 (11) and the following substituted:

(d) prescribing the period for the purpose of subsection (8);

See: 2009, c. 5, ss. 33 (11), 59 (2).

(e) prescribing a schedule of fees that may be charged by independent contractors for services in connection with this section;

(f) prescribing the form of security that may be deposited pursuant to an order made under subsection (23) and governing the forfeiture and return of the security;

(g) prescribing the manner in which orders may be issued and notification of them given under this section;

(h) prescribing methods for and rules of service for any notices or orders required to be served under this section;

(i) classifying commercial motor vehicles and trailers and exempting any class of commercial motor vehicle or trailer from any provision of this section or from any regulation made under this section and prescribing conditions for any such exemption. 1997, c. 12, s. 10.

(38) Repealed: 2008, c. 17, s. 42.

Regulations re inspection of certain motor vehicles

83. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

(a) requiring the owners of commercial motor vehicles, or any type or class thereof, uninsured motor vehicles or motor assisted bicycles, and motor vehicles or motor assisted bicycles that have been involved in accidents that are reportable under section 199 to submit them to inspection;

(b) prescribing the inspection procedures, inspection requirements and performance standards required for the motor vehicles and motor assisted bicycles;

(c) prohibiting the operation on a highway of motor vehicles and motor assisted bicycles that do not comply with the requirements and standards, and providing for the seizure of the number plates of the motor vehicles and for holding them until the motor vehicle is made to comply with the requirements and standards. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 83.

Penalty for driving unsafe vehicle

84. (1) No person shall drive or operate or permit the driving or operation upon a highway of a vehicle, a street car or vehicles that in combination are in a dangerous or unsafe condition. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 84; 2009, c. 33, Sched. 26, s. 3 (9).

Vehicle with critical defect deemed unsafe

(1.1) If a commercial motor vehicle or trailer has one or more critical defect, as prescribed by regulation, it shall be deemed to be in a dangerous or unsafe condition. 1997, c. 12, s. 11; 2009, c. 33, Sched. 26, s. 3 (10).

Penalty

(2) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and, if the offence was committed by means of a commercial motor vehicle within the meaning of subsection 16 (1), on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $400 and not more than $20,000. 1996, c. 20, s. 19.

Toronto Parking By-laws that Do Not Require Signs

Update:

Parking Offences that “Do Not Require Signs”:

The Most Common Parking Offences:

Offence No. on TicketDescription———–Area for By-law ——-$ Set Fine $

2 <> ———————–Park longer than 3 hours—-Toronto wide——————$15.00
11
<> ———————–Park more than 30cm from curb-Toronto wide———-$15.00
12
<> ———————-Park vehicle for sale———–Toronto wide——————$15.00
14
<> ———————-Park obstruct driveway/laneway–Toronto wide———$40.00
15
<> ———————-Park 3 metres of fire hydrant–Toronto wide—————$100.00
16
<> ———————-Park 9 metres of intersecting highway-Toronto wide– $40.00
24
<> ———————-Park taxi cab for hire-unauthorized location -Tor. wide $30.00
26
<> ———————-Park on Boulevard: ————–North York ——————$30.00
——————————Park on Boulevard: ————–Scarborough—————-$30.00
——————————Park on Boulevard:—————East York——————– $30.00
——————————Park on Boulevard:—————Toronto———————- $30.00
28
<>———————–Park between 2am-6am Dec 1 to Mar 31-North York—- $30.00
30
<>———————–Stop on/over sidewalk/footpath–Toronto wide———-$60.00
31
<>————————Stop roadside (parked/stopped) vehicle- Tor. wide——$60.00
48
<>———————–Park left wheels to curb————–Toronto wide———–$15.00
57
<>———————–Stop within intersection————Toronto wide———–$60.00
58
<>———————–Stop within 9 metres of crosswalk–Toronto wide——–$60.00
65
<>———————–Stop on bridge————————–Toronto wide————$60.00
70
<>———————–Stop on centre strip——————Toronto wide————$60.00

Information above found through the City of Toronto website.

For up-to-date parking by-law information in your area, please call Access Toronto at 416-338-0338 or email at [email protected]

Drinking and Driving Laws Implemented in Ontario on May 1, 2009 (Bill 203)

Update:

See a previous post, posted on March 3, 2009.

Since the R.I.D.E (Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere) was introduced as a police procedure in 1977 in Etobicoke, Ontario (the “E” in RIDE, originally stood for Etobicoke) it has evolved, with the approval and condonation of the Supreme Court of Canada. Initially it was argued (pre-Charter) that citizen’s did not have to submit to a breath sample, under this program and to stop a motorist to perform this police procedure, was tantamount to arbitrarily detaining and imprisoning the driver – the Supreme Court disagreed (see Dedman v. The Queen);  the Supreme Court also recognized that section 48 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, gave police the legal right to stop motorists through the R.I.D.E program (see R. v. Decorte). After the Charter was implemented in Canada, a number of people argued that R.I.D.E infringed upon their Charter rights, specifically section 9 (Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned) and section 10, subsection (b) (Everyone has the right on arrest and detention (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right) these arguments were rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada. Since that time, the law, which has become harsher and harsher in Ontario, has evolved to where it is today. It has not and will not remain static.

Prior to May 1, 2009, drivers who were pulled over and blew into a roadside breathalyzer, whose breath sample registered a blood alcohol content between 0.05 and 0.08 were subjected to a driver’s licence temporary suspension of twelve (12) hours pursuant to section 48 of the Highway Traffic Act. The most recent amendments, through Bill 203, to the Highway Traffic Act, radically change this procedure.

Many Provinces have dealt with motorists reading between .05 and .08 by impounding their vehicles and taking away their drivers’ licences for 12 hours or more. All 50 states in the United States of America have adopted legislation which makes it illegal for any driver of a motor vehicle to have 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood (0.08%) blood alcohol content, while operating a motor vehicle.  If you are apprehended by law enforcement in the States you will be arrested for DWI (Driving While Impaired or Under Influence of Alcohol or, in some instances, under the Influence of Drugs or other Intoxicants).

See Order Approving Certain Breath Analysis Instruments as Suitable for the Purposes of Section 258 of the Criminal Code (Approved Breath Analysis Instruments Order SI/85-201)

Last year a number of Ontario Regulations (287/08,405/08 & 407/08) amending the Highway Traffic Act were passed and those laws came into force effective May 1, 2009. These laws are specifically designed to deal with motorists on Ontario highways, who consume alcohol and then drive a motor vehicle.

Effective May 1 ,  2009:

Effective May 1, 2009 any motorist in Ontario who is stopped by a police officer and provides a sample of breath (breathalyzer) which registers a blood alcohol content anywhere between 0.05 and 0.08 will automatically have their driver’s licence suspended for a period of three (3) days. If the same driver is pulled over again, for a second time (within five (5) years of the first administrative suspension of their driver’s licence) and their blood alcohol content again registers anywhere between 0.05 and 0.08, the driver’s driving licence will be suspended for seven (7) days and that driver must then enroll and complete a remedial alcohol education program. If the same driver is pulled over a third time or more (within five (5) years of the last administrative suspension of their driver’s licence) and their blood alcohol content registers anywhere between 0.05 and 0.08, their driver’s licence will be suspended for thirty (30) days and they must then enroll and complete a remedial alcohol education program and will have a “ignition interlock” condition placed on their driver’s licence for a full six (6) months. There will be no mechanism to allow the driver to appeal the police officer’s decision to suspend the driver’s licence and there will be a record of the suspension on the driver’s driving record with the Ministry of Transportation for a period of five (5) years. If the driver is charged under the Criminal Code of Canada and subsequently convicted of impaired driving, the conviction remains on the driver’s record with the Ministry of Transportation for a minimum period of ten (10) years.

In addition to these suspensions noted above, each driver convicted of a second or third offence will have to undergo a Remedial Alcohol Education Program(“Back on Track”) (paid for by the driver = $606.90) and any driver convicted of a third offence will have to undergo the “Back on Track” Education Program and will also have an Install Ignition Interlock condition on their driver’s licence for six (6) months (paid for by the driver – about $750 over 6 months + taxes). The out of pocket expenses incurred for the Education Program and Ignition Interlock will pale in comparison to the increase in Auto Insurance premiums(for at least six (6) years).  Money is only money and can always be replaced, the lives of our loved ones and friends, once lost, can never be replaced.

See Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) Calculator.

On April 23, 2009 Bill 126 received Royal Assent and became law. This Bill is expected to come into force in the spring or summer of 2010. This Bill does not allow Novice or Young Driver’s (21 years and younger) to have any alcohol whatsoever in their system while operating a motor vehicle.  Here are some highlights of Bill 126:

What changes have been made to the Highway Traffic Act (the H.T.A) as a result of the enactment of Bill 126 ? :

Bill 126 increases many of the financial fines under the H.T.A (sections 106,130,144 & 146 and 200):

Seatbelts – see Section 106 of the H.T.A – fine was $60 to $500 (see general penalty) increases to $200 to $1,000

Careless Driving – see Section 130 of the H.T.A – fine was $200 to $1,000 increases to $400 to $2,000

Failure to Stop at Red Light/Red Light Camera – see Sections 144 & 146 of the H.T.A – fine was $150 to $500 this fine increases to $200 to $1,000.00

Duty of person in charge of vehicle in case of accident (remain or immediately return to scene of accident, render all possible assistance and provide particulars upon request) – see  Penalty Section 200 (2) of the H.T.A. – fine was $200 to $1,000 increases to $400 to $2,000.00

There have been a number of changes to the Highway Traffic Act, through this Bill, which are aimed at drinking and drugged driving:

Novice Drivers and Young Drivers must drive without any alcohol in their system. If they fail to do so, they will be looking at a fine of anywhere between sixty dollars ($60.00) and five hundred dollars ($500.00) if convicted of violating this new section 44.1 of the H.T.A. A young driver is defined as a driver younger than twenty-two (22) years of age. If a young driver is pulled over and it is discovered that he/she has alcohol in their system, they will be charged and in addition to the fine reflected above, upon conviction, their driver’s licence will be suspended for thirty (30) days. Novice driver’s, upon conviction will be fined and could have their licence cancelled, reclassified or suspended.

See Ontario Regulations 287/08, 405/08 and 407/08 which all came into effect on May 1, 2009.

Ontario is now boasting that it has the safest highways in North America and that the fatality rates on Ontario Highways are the lowest, in 78 years (since 1931).

Prince Edward Island is also taking steps to minimize drinking and driving.

Update: June 19, 2009- Young Driver faces a yearly insurance rate of $20,400.00, if convicted. See story

Update: September 9, 2009 – Impaired Driver sentenced to Life Sentence in Quebec.

Update: January 5, 2010 – between Nov.27/09 to Jan.4/10 over 1 million (1,174,224) motorists were pulled over by the OPP’s R.I.D.E and 298 driver’s were charged with impaired driving and 5,031 other charges were laid during this passage of time.  See the O.P.P’s January 4, 2010 news release.

University of B.C. has no legal right to issue Parking Tickets/Collect Fines

Update:

Daniel S. Barbour is an accountant from Vancouver. A few years back, the University of British Columbia provided him with a ticket, claiming that he had accumulated four (4) unpaid tickets and he disputed this. The next time he was parked, legally on the UBC campus (take a virtual tour of the UBC), his car was towed for and held ransom for $200, due to alleged unpaid parking fines. In response, he initiated a class action lawsuit against the University in 2005 and took the position that the University of British Columbia was governed by the University Act and had no authority to issue parking tickets and to then collect fines, for unpaid tickets. In response to the plaintiff’s, UBC took the position that they had the right to ticket/fine and tow motor vehicles on their property and that they would vigourously fight this lawsuit as the “respondent”.

The fight that Mr. Barbour (the “plaintiff”) began has been a long one. He first had to go to British Columbia’s Supreme Court between October 2-5, 2006 and wait for the first decision, which was released by Justice Mr. Richard Goepel on December 20, 2006. In response the UBC had to post a notice alerting people that a class action suit was taking place and making them aware of a short form notice or a long form notice and whether or not they wanted to become a member of that class action civil suit.

A second hearing took place in this matter, in The Supreme Court of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia between September 22-26, 2008 in the continuing case called Barbour versus The University of British Columbia. The Honourable Mr. Justice Richard B.T. Goepel presided over the class action suit and rendered his second award on March 30, 2009.

Under the Summary of his award, Justice Richard B.T. Goepel writes, in part:

The Parking Regulation Fines are ultra vires. UBC cannot enter contracts or licenses that incorporate the Parking Regulation Fines. UBC’s common law proprietary rights authorize the towing and storage of vehicles parked contrary to the Parking Regulations. UBC is entitled to collect the costs arising from such towing. UBC cannot, however, rely on its proprietary rights to charge or collect the Parking Regulation Fines. The plaintiff and other class members are entitled to restitution in the amount of the Parking Regulation Fines subject only to applicable defences under the Limitations Act, towing and storage charges and the applicability of UBC’s claim of set-off which has yet to be resolved.

Between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2005 the University of B.C. generated 432,847 thousand illegal parking tickets. The number of tickets generated between January 1, 2006 up to and including April 1, 2009 is unclear, but based on the previous numbers, it has to be at least another 80 thousand tickets. A review of the decision means that the University of British Columbia will have to pay back hundreds of thousands of motorists (probably about $40) to each person, who paid for illegally issued parking fines, since 1990. It has been reported that the UBC will have to pay over 4 million dollars, plus pre-judgement interest, found in the Court Order Interest Act.

This is a excerpt from the first court decision, describing the areas that UBC’s PACS (Parking and Access Control Services) would descend upon, generating and issuing as many tickets as they needed to, on a regular and consistent basis:

Currently, UBC maintains three types of parking facilities:

(1)        five parkades with approximately 4,900 parking spaces;
(2)        more than forty surface lots with approximately 3,000 parking spaces; and
(3)        approximately 300 metered parking spaces.

Here is the University of British Columbia’s response to Justice Richard B.T. Goepel’s March 30, 2009 decision.

The fight  that Daniel Barbour commenced in 2005, isn’t over yet. In a University of British Columbia (UBC) April 2009 Bulletin, the UBC in the last paragraph of the Bulletin, states that they are appealing the Supreme Court of British Columbia’s decision, as constructed by the presiding Judge, Justice Mr. Richard Goepel on March 30, 2009. This response by the respondent is somewhat predictable, given the millions of dollars it will have to pay out to those who had to pay for the illegal tickets issued by the UBC’s PACS.

People who fight may lose. People who do not fight have already lost.”:author/playwright Bertolt Brecht