News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.7K     0 

FWIW on the above, the City is pulling disputation of tickets from JPs and shifting them to an Administrative Tribunal as noted in the article linked above:

1675354953153.png


****

Side note, and maybe the lawyers here can chip in.............given that there are no demerit points, and no driving suspensions, and no jail terms; and that this is set up as an absolute liability offense. (one for which intent is not
a relevant factor)

I'm surprised the evidentiary standard cited by the JP was guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Its not a criminal conviction.

I would have thought the Civil Standard of Balance of the Probabilities would be more reasonable.

Not often I'm surprised by such things, and doubtless I could look it up, as I so often do, but I'd be interested to hear the take of UT's legal eagles and @lenaitch on this....
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised by the decision, but I've also appeared before any number of arbitrators, chairs, judges and other decision-makers of varying quality, and anything can happen on any given day, particularly with the criminal standard of proof which is very high. All provincial offences have to meet this standard even where they're not criminal offences.

I think as noted above and in the article, the courts will get used to this technology and things will settle in place. One our two outlier cases helps that process along.
 
crs1026 said:
I would have thought that the Reg’s would say something such as “a radar camera will be considered reliable provided that the following testing and certification is in place”

If somebody wanted to take a run at that standard, by offering a dissenting expert opinion, or otherwise putting the crown on the onus to show that the standard is technically sound and reliable, then we would have a valid precedent-worthy challenge to the law.

However, if this trial was just a case of the officer being poorly prepared for their appearance, or having a bad day on the witness stand, then I don’t see the case as having any real importance or precedent. Officers are only human and testifying is a very difficult task. Hopefully some supervisor is monitoring each officer’s track record and evaluating overall proficiency.

And if the installation or maintenance of that camera was deficient, that too is just a one-of and should rightly lead to acquittal - and again, somebody should be accountable for letting that happen.

- Paul
Click to expand...
Whenever there is an issue of new legislation,, technology, procedures, etc., Crown Law is always on the lookout for 'appealable' cases in order to establish precedent law. Clarity benefits everyone. It is still with the period when a notice of appeal can be filed, but it doesn't sound like this is a poster boy for the appellate court.

I haven't bothered researching what the legislated calibration standard is. Maybe it was followed and the prosecution dropped the ball, or maybe it wasn't. If the calibration standard is lacking and needs improving to make the courts happy, this doesn't sound like the case to do it since they never got to the details of the standard. With traditional radar, operating police officers prove the instrument with tuning fork (either daily or after every charge - I forget) and write that in their notes.
Northern Light said:
FWIW on the above, the City is pulling disputation of tickets from JPs and shifting them to an Administrative Tribunal as noted in the article linked above:

View attachment 453835

****

Side note, and maybe the lawyers here can chip in.............given that there are no demerit points, and no driving suspensions, and no jail terms; and that this is set up as an absolute liability offense. (one for which intent is not
a relevant factor)

I'm surprised the evidentiary standard cited by the JP was guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Its not criminal conviction.

I would have thought the Civil Standard of Balance of the Probabilities would be more reasonable.

Not often I'm surprised by such things, and doubtless I could look it up, as I so often do, but I'd be interested to hear the take of UT's legal eagles and @lenaitch on this....
Click to expand...

The Highway Traffic Act is provincial regulatory law, but charges are adjudicated in the criminal justice system, so it's really the only benchmark available. Standards of evidence and process in the common law system date back hundreds of years. Photo radar is a handful of sections within the HTA and its regulations, and you can't really have one standard for, say Careless Driving' and another standard for photo radar. I don't know the details of the tribunal system they are planning to use, but from my very limited experience with a tribunal in Ontario, you could see decisions that are all over the map. Tribunal adjudicators don't have the legal authority to make precedent law.

But remember, it's not about the money.
 
lenaitch said:
But remember, it's not about the money.
Click to expand...

I am still advocating two remedies to that problem

- Allow the guilty to direct the fine (but not the admin charge) to the registered charity of their choice - no tax receipt, but the money does not go to government
- Waive the fine altogether if a licensed driver is willing to sign for the demerit points ( attesting under oath that they were the driver, so there can't be a cottage industry of people who don't need a license selling their demerits)

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
I am still advocating two remedies to that problem

- Allow the guilty to direct the fine (but not the admin charge) to the registered charity of their choice - no tax receipt, but the money does not go to government
Click to expand...
I appreciate the intent here.......but that strikes me as rather convoluted. I'm thinking of how administratively you're now going to have the government collect the dollars and then dole them back out; or alternatively the person responsible has to what, make a donation then file proof of same? Ugh.

crs1026 said:
- Waive the fine altogether if a licensed driver is willing to sign for the demerit points ( attesting under oath that they were the driver, so there can't be a cottage industry of people who don't need a license selling their demerits)

- Paul
Click to expand...

As someone who used to work in insurance, I have to assure you that anyone would have to be intellectually bereft to make this choice.

Insurance will penalize you in premiums for any demerit-based offense.

In general, at the lower end, you should expect to pay an extra 5% per annum for three years from the date of an offense.

For most drivers, that's $300++

But if it were a serious offense or a repeat one, that premium penalties can get severe.

* Edit to add, I'm only weighting for a conviction-free discount; but in fact, you could also be penalized on your driving record which can add up even faster.
 
What if the defendant "confesses" that he or she was the one allegedly "speeding", would he or she become liable for demerit points, and in turn insurance premium increases?
 
Northern Light said:
I appreciate the intent here.......but that strikes me as rather convoluted. I'm thinking of how administratively you're now going to have the government collect the dollars and then dole them back out; or alternatively the person responsible has to what, make a donation then file proof of same? Ugh.
Click to expand...

Well, if one assumes that most drivers do pay up rather than fight the fine, and if one further assumes that they do so on line…. a simple 4-digit charity code, selected from a list presented on line, is pretty efficient. I seem to recall the charity campaign at my employer working something like that.

Northern Light said:
As someone who used to work in insurance, I have to assure you that anyone would have to be intellectually bereft to make this choice.

Insurance will penalize you in premiums for any demerit-based offense.

In general, at the lower end, you should expect to pay an extra 5% per annum for three years from the date of an offense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I actually was going to add “sign for the demerits and inform their insurance”.

Call me a hardass, but I don’t have a problem with that consequence, in theory anyways.

I suspect that, as you point out, few repeat offenders would elect that option, but most insurers do look past the first offence or accident. For someone who basically drives safely but makes an occasional human error, this option might be attractive.

I find the folks who grumble about radar enforcement as a “tax grab” are missing the point - even though that may be true at the moment. I am quite happy to see government give up the revenue if it makes the enforcement more compelling and credible.

- Paul
 
I think the proposed system would be quite cumbersome to administer. There are 85,000 registered charities in Canada; 1600 in Ontario (which strikes me as low). So I pay an amount to a charity of choice, some kind of acceptable document would have to be sent from the charity to the proper court (it couldn't be a tax receipt - it would ineligible since I received a consideration). Having volunteered for a charity, many of the small one are barely able to keep up the current CRA requirements.

As for 'confessing' to be the driver, first off the legislation would have to be changed. I don't think a declaration would cut it since I could turn around and say that wasn't me. I think it would have to be either notarized or under oath. Again, seems cumbersome and, as NL says, what idiot would do that. If the driver and owner want to sort this out, leave it between the two of them.
 
For those living in or close to the Wallace-Emerson area, there's a Vision Zero related study coming that hood.

It will look at everything from geometric improvements, to streetscape changes to road diets to sidewalks.

So make sure and deliver some well informed input on how to make the area safer, and more pleasant to pedestrians and cyclists.

www.toronto.ca

Wallace Emerson Neighbourhood Streets Plan

Attend the public drop-in event on February 16, 2023. Complete the feedback survey. View event details and meeting materials in the Consultation tab below. The Wallace Emerson Neighbourhood Streets Plan (NSP) will identify, prioritize and recommend improvements to traffic operations and street...
www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

From the above:
1675699477790.png



1675699563144.png


Interactive Mapping Tool, here:

toronto.mysocialpinpoint.ca

Social Pinpoint - Wallace Emerson Neighbourhood Streets Plan

A Place to engage your Community
toronto.mysocialpinpoint.ca toronto.mysocialpinpoint.ca

Feedback survey, here: https://toronto.mysocialpinpoint.ca...utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=addtoany
 
That looks like a lot of fun! Leslie Grove is a bit like that, because people have left a lot of play vehicles scattered around, and it has nice paths and the splash pad pavement to drive around on. But it's definitely accidental.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top