Anke Wallert leans on a parking machine at North York General Hospital’s Branson site, where she and husband Alexander Nairn got a parking ticket because the machine wouldn’t accept their new loonies and toonies. Hospitals around the GTA are now upgrading their parking machines. Richard Lautens/Toronto Star
Toronto-area hospitals are upgrading their parking meters to accommodate new loonies and toonies.
“Some machines have already been fixed to accept the new coins,” said Marcelo Gomez-Wiuckstern, spokesperson for North York General Hospital.
The hospital is in talks with Precise Parklink, the contractor that manages its parking lot, to update all its meters, Gomez-Wiuckstern said. In the meantime, Parklink has put up signs notifying customers that the outdated meters are incompatible with the coins, he added.
Alexander Nairn, 87, whose wife, Anke Wallert, received a $49 ticket last week after parking meters at North York General’s Branson site rejected her new loonies and toonies, said the upgrades are “belated.”
“Why didn’t they do it when the coins came out, which is how long ago?”
The Royal Canadian Mint began issuing the revamped coins in April. They are manufactured with multi-ply plated steel technology and weigh less than their alloy predecessors.
After the Star published an article about the incident, Parklink cancelled Nairn’s ticket, he said.
Parklink has been working on updating its 7,000 to 8,000 meters for the past couple of weeks, according to Tony Vit, the company’s regional manager.
“We’ve already rolled that out,” he said.
Toronto East General Hospital is also looking to update its meters in light of the Star’s article, said spokesperson Angela Pappaianni. Unit Park, an external contractor, manages the hospital’s parking.
“What we’re talking to them about is to make sure the machines are compatible or work with the new toonies and loonies,” she said, adding that the hospital has not yet received complaints
Today is fightyourtickets.ca's third anniversary - November 5, 2011
This could not have happened without you!
fightyourtickets.ca is three (3) years old today. fightyourtickets.ca could not have continued without the ongoing support of visitors.
fightyourtickets.ca wants to acknowledge and thank everyone of you who have supported this website.
As the website evolved over time, many called for a book version of the site with additional chapters that are not found anywhere on the site. fightyourtickets.ca rose to the challenge and published a book “Fight Your Tickets: A Comprehensive Guide to Traffic Tickets”.
This book was originally released as an eBook and then as a hardcopy book found in various bookstores.
The second edition of “Fight Your Tickets: A Comprehensive Guide to Traffic Tickets” has now been released as an ebook and a hardcopy version.
fightyourtickets.ca wants to thank all of those people who supported by the site by making donations or purchased the book online or at various bookstores. Approximately 5000 Absolute Unique Visitors visit fightyourtickets.ca every week.
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided in a small Toronto company’s ” i4i’s” favour, over the giant Microsoft on June 9, 2011.
All too often large corporations infringe upon a small company’s patent rights and get away with it. Why? Because small company’s do not have, in some instances, $20-50 million dollars in their “defend the company patent budget” and as a result, cannot pursue a large corporation with 50 billion dollars in assets (ie-microsoft) who infringe upon their patent.
A small Toronto company (Michel J.M.G Vulpe; Stephen P. Owens, Infrastructures for Information Incorporated., Toronto, Ontario, Canada – i4i) filed a patent with the U.S. Patent Office on June 2, 1994 regarding a “Method and System for Manipulating the Architecture and the Content of a document separately from each other” . A U.S. Patent (Vulpe et al) – Patent Number: 5,787,449 – Date of Patent: July 28, 1998.
The owners of "eye for an eye" (i4i) celebrate their victory over Microsoft
In 2007 i4i launched a civil suit against Microsoft for infringing upon its’ XML editor patent. In Texas, a District Court in Texas awarded i4i $290 million from Microsoft and ordered Microsoft to remove its’ Word (Microsoft Word 2003 & 2007) product from the market within 60 days.
In response to this decision, Microsoft appealed and lost in 2009.
Microsoft appealed the ruling all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the appeal.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided with i4i and ordered Microsoft to pay the outstanding damages of $290 million (USD) and to stop selling versions of its’ Word software that contains the i4i system.
Many believe that Microsoft knew of the probable outcome, but pushed it anyway, sending a message to small patent owners that if they want to defend their patents, they better have deep pockets and plenty of patience for the long haul.
The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the current patent system in the U.S., where those who attempt to have a patent declared invalid must present to the courts “clear and convincing” evidence, as to why the patent should be declared invalid.
TORONTO (Friday, July 9, 2010) – Ontario Ombudsman André Marin today announced he is launching an investigation into the origin and subsequent communication of the controversial security regulation passed by the province prior to the June 26-27 G20 summit.
The investigation, to be conducted by the Special Ombudsman Response Team (SORT), will examine the involvement of the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services in the origin of Regulation 233/10, made last month under the Public Works Protection Act to apply to parts of downtown Toronto near the summit meeting site – and the subsequent communication about it to stakeholders, including police, media and the public.
The Ombudsman’s office has received 22 complaints relating to the G20, including several alleging that a lack of transparency and public communication about the regulation led to an atmosphere of secrecy and confusion and contributed to violations of civil liberties. “The complaints we’ve received so far raise serious concerns about this regulation and the way it was communicated, and I think there is a very strong public interest in finding out exactly what happened and how that affected the rest of the events of the G20 weekend,” Mr. Marin said.
The investigation is expected to be completed within 90 days, Mr. Marin said. Anyone who has a complaint or relevant information is asked to call 1-800-263-1830 during business hours or complete an online complaint form at www.ombudsman.on.ca.
Ombudsman releases findings of G20 investigation in a Report “Caught in the Act” and finds that Citizens were unfairly trapped by secret expansion of police powers.
TORONTO (December 7, 2010) – The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services quietly promoted the use of a likely illegal regulation to grant police “extravagant” powers on the eve of the G20 summit, Ontario Ombudsman André Marin says in his latest report, released today.
The controversial measure – Regulation 233/10 under the 71-year-old Public Works Protection Act (PWPA) – “was of dubious legality and no utility” and resulted in a mass violation of civil rights, Mr. Marin says in Caught in the Act(127 page report). The Toronto Police Service, which had requested the regulation because it was responsible for policing the areas around the security fence in downtown Toronto, compounded matters through its miscommunication about the reach of the regulation’s extraordinary powers, he said.
The Ombudsman found the Ministry, which had decided not to publicize the new legal measure, was “caught short” when Toronto Police misapprehended the regulation’s reach and used the authority of the PWPA to arrest or detain people who were simply in the vicinity of the security fence. Throughout the weekend of the G20 summit, police exercised their powers under the Act well beyond the limits of the security perimeter, even after the misinterpretation had been corrected.
It was “opportunistic and inappropriate” to use the PWPA – a “war measure” that allows “extravagant police authority” to arrest and search people in the name of protecting public works – for this purpose, Mr. Marin said. “Here in 2010 is the province of Ontario conferring wartime powers on police officers in peacetime. That is a decision that should not have been taken lightly or kept shrouded in secrecy, particularly not in the era of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
Going into the weekend of the G20 summit, no one knew about the regulation – not the public, not the press, city administrators or even key members of the Integrated Security Unit (ISU) in charge of management and co-ordination of summit security, the Ombudsman’s investigation found.
Worse, the Ministry’s decision not to publicize the regulation entrapped citizens who took the trouble to inform themselves of their rights and wound up “caught in the Act’s all but invisible web,” Mr. Marin said. “By changing the legal landscape without warning, regulation 233/10 operated as a trap for those who relied on their ordinary legal rights.”
The Ministry also failed to ensure that police were adequately trained on the regulation, which contributed in part to the “chaos and confusion” on city streets during the summit, he said. “The Ministry simply handed over to the Toronto Police inordinate powers, without any efforts made to ensure those powers would not be misunderstood.”
Ordinary citizens were shocked to discover that police had the power to detain and search even people who did not try to breach the fence or who declined to produce ID and tried to walk away, he noted. “Apart from insiders in the government of Ontario, only members of the Toronto Police Service knew that the rules of the game had changed, and they were the ones holding the ‘go directly to jail’ cards.”
The Ombudsman’s investigation was conducted by the Special Ombudsman Response Team (SORT) and involved 49 interviews with senior government officials and numerous stakeholders, including several of the 167 complainants who came forward. The team also reviewed hundreds of pages of internal government documents and emails and, for the first time, a wealth of evidence obtained via social media such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.
Mr. Marin recommended the Public Works Protection Act be revised or replaced, and that the Ministry examine whether any of the sweeping police powers it confers should be included in any new version, particularly whether it is appropriate to give police the authority to arrest those who have already been excluded entry to secured areas. He also said the Ministry should develop a protocol calling for public information campaigns whenever police powers are modified by subordinate legislation.
The Ministry has accepted all the recommendations and agreed to report back to the Ombudsman on its progress in implementing them. The Minister’s response, included in the report, notes that the enactment of the regulation could have been better handled and that in future it will take greater care to ensure the public is informed.
Note: The Ombudsman’s news conference will be webcast live at 1 p.m. and archived at www.ombudsman.on.ca . It will be posted later at www.YouTube.com/OntarioOmbudsman.
Ontario Ombudsman André Marin stated “In their haste to bump up G20 security, Ontario authorities kept silent on a convoluted amendment to 71-year-old legislation that was “illegal” and “likely unconstitutional,” abrogating the Charter rights of thousands of people in the process,”.
YouTube video where Ontario Ombudsman André Marin speaks to the findings of his investigation regarding the G20 in Toronto: