Reply With Quote53(1.1) pertains to vehicle operations while under an order of license suspension.
CCoC 253/254/255: Impaired operation of a vehicle
1) No
2) Yes
3) #1 doesn't apply.
|
|
This is a snippet from Bill 203 in Part III.1 Unlawful Activities related to road safety
11.1 . . .
“vehicular unlawful activity” means an act or omission that,
(a) is an offence under section 253, 254 or 255 of the Criminal Code (Canada) or another provision of the Criminal Code (Canada) that is prescribed by the regulations made under this Act,
(b) is an offence under subsection 53 (1.1) of the Highway Traffic Act or another provision of the Highway Traffic Act that is prescribed by the regulations made under this Act, subject to the conditions or in the circumstances prescribed by the regulation, or
(c) is an offence under an Act of a jurisdiction outside Ontario, if a similar act or omission would be an offence described in clause (a) or (b) if it were committed in Ontario,
whether the act or omission occurred before or after this Part came into force. (“activité illégale liée à l’utilisation d’un véhicule”)
Forfeiture order
11.2 (1) In a proceeding commenced by the Attorney General, the Superior Court of Justice shall, subject to subsection (4) and except where it would clearly not be in the interests of justice, make an order forfeiting a vehicle to the Crown in right of Ontario if the court finds that the vehicle,
(a) was or is likely to be used to engage in vehicular unlawful activity; and
(b) is owned by or is in the care, control or possession of a person whose driver’s licence has been suspended under the Highway Traffic Act for vehicular unlawful activity two or more times in the preceding 10 years.
Some thoughts or questions.
1. Would 'racing'/'stunt' be considered as "vehicular unlawful activity". Read 11.1(b) above.
2. Does the term 'suspension' in 11.2(b) include administrative suspensions or only those as a result of conviction.
3. If answer to 1 is yes, would that mean it's possible to be forced to forfeit your vehicle to the government for being convicted (or perhaps just even charged ... see question 2) 2 times in 10 year period for 'racing'/'stunt'.
Do we need a lawyer to help with answering these questions correctly.
Moderator
53(1.1) pertains to vehicle operations while under an order of license suspension.
CCoC 253/254/255: Impaired operation of a vehicle
1) No
2) Yes
3) #1 doesn't apply.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
The one I'm most concerned with is from here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
Which states:
Legal Rights
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;
g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and
i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.
05 DRZ400SM
93 ZX-7
02 RM125
Z1K, we wouldn't want our charter rights interfere with the province's rights to make more money.
Moderator
Unless The Province lays in a whole bunch more JPs, I don't think that they'll be making a whole lot of money off this. The more people they charge, the more crowded the courts get. The more crowded the courts get, the longer the delays and greater the likelihood that 11b Charter filings get people off.Originally Posted by croco
The people who will make money are the towing and impound yard companies who have police contracts. They'll be able to retire by next September.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
The charter . . what a joke . . nobody follows that . . its kinda like constitution in the states, its just a suggestion, when its not convenient for the state, forget it.
This might be off topic but heres what I don't get about the charter . . .
Why do I have to fight to get my rights . . . if my court date is 2 years from the offense, it should be AUTOMATICALLY thrown out, no people involved, a computer should check some bit and say, jeez if we take this guy to court we'll be breaking the law we'd better not do that.
INSTEAD, I have to file a million bloody documents to god knows who and still show up at court to have my rights violated . . .
rights . . . paaalease
Moderator
Because not every delay is a Charter violation.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
The new law, as it has so far been used, doesnt violate this at all...
at roadside you are charged, not convicted. No fine has been levied against you until after your court appearance. So, your 11.d rights are still preserved. The impound fee you incur is not considered punitive, it is systematic in nature, therefore it is not considered part of the punishment. Yes, its kind of a loophole..
Your vehicle is impounded because your driving is considered to be dangerous at that time. Because you pose a threat to the general "law-abiding" population, the threat of you must be removed. This is not considered "unreasonable" by any stretch. You never "accidentally" do 150kmh on the highway. The right to the safety of the thousands of motorists on the road will always trump #8, and no court will disagree (in context of the racing/stunting law).
Police know that a lot of people with suspended licenses still drive, and by keeping your car out of your hands, it helps assure you wont be driving for the duration of your suspension. The cop clocked you at +50kmh, so he has caught you red handed. At this point, you have proven yourself irresponsible on the road, and this needs to be dealt with. Driving is NOT a right, and is not protected by any constitution. It is a priviledge allowed to you by the province, and they have the ability, and the obligation, to remove this proviledge from anyone who demonstrates the inability to obey the rules that are in place for everyone and their safety.
...of course, if the cop charges you because he "suspects you were doing +50kmh", then you can say your rights have been violated, and have legal recourse to defend based on your charter rights.
Last edited by suprPHREAK; 11-07-2007 at 08:41 AM.
CHOWDAH RIDAH
2007 ZX-14 -92,000km
2006 BW'S -7,000km
2005 ZX636R -63,533km (stolen)
2004 SV650S -30,000km (sold)
2003 ZZR250 -15,000km (sold)
Current tire choice: Pirelli Angel
Last tire choice: Road Smart- 19,000 on last set (not the best though..)
CSC Certified Riding Instructor
Moderator
The seizure and suspension are considered administrative in nature, which has been upheld in the case of impaired driving. The 50+ argument has been beaten to death. It isn't the only thing that people are being charged for though far too many, especially proponents of this legislation, hammer it to the point of banality.
It's time to get off that kick. There is far more to this law than speed and much of it has to do with an officer's interpretation of a driver's actions. By sticking to the 50+ aspect of the issue, we are all playing into the marketing that has been used to justify this law. That an officer can have your vehicle impounded, due to honest mistake of interpretation or malice, makes this law unreasonable.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
I'm not a lawyer and from my understanding the Charter of Rights has limitations, tell me I'm wrong:
6(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
- a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and .....
I've heard enough about "50km over" It's irrelevant, and not my main concern.
The real issue at hand is the rest of the craap tacked onto this law.
You spin the tire a little, make too quick of a lane change, or the cop simply has it in for bikers that day, say goodbye, your a victim too.
Of course most of these secrets will be kept under the rug until you get jacked, then the cops will think something up to justify their actions.
No fair you say? Try to argue with them and BAAM another 5000$ for speaking your mind? LOL
This is nothing short of illegal itself, i guess we're supposed to smile like good little sheep and thank the gov for keeping us so safe. Maybe we should dig Hitler up and let him run things, just kill everyone that doesn't fit the mould and the world will be a better place eh?! We're heading that way.
Since when did the roads become such a priority? If they want to save lives, fix the friggin road first, obviously the gov doesn't understand how difficult it is to navigate the pothole ridden garbage we pay to drive on.
And how did driving behaviour superceed all the gun and knife crimes we read about everyday. I guess a couple murders a day is acceptable eh? Firing guns around in crowded places ain't so bad. Stupid azzes have their priorities so far out of whack, only in Ontario i tell ya.
Oh look, another kid dead in the news, shot in the head yesterday. Oh well, he was black so it's not important, eventually they will all kill eachother, that will fix the problem. (police view, certainly not mine)
I think you all understand where i'm going with this, it's simply not right in any way.
Check your mirrors, the Land Pirates might be on your tail !
The problem is that our charter rights are not specified in the charter, but are defined by case law. Back in 1982, R v. Askov set the limit to less than one year. As time passed and the courts became overcrowded, this limit crept up to 14 months in R v. Morin. How long do you think it will take before 2 years will be considered fair game?
And you know what? If I'd get caught speeding, I'd GLADLY pay the fine and be done with it. In my 10 years of driving the highest ticket I ever got was 49km/h over, with a fine of about $450. That same ticket cost me $800 in agent fees, transcripts, time off, etc. However, even one ticket is enough to destroy your life, because the insurance companies are just looking for reasons to cancel your policy or increase your rates. That's where the problem lies.
Moderator
The scale is also dependant upon jurisdiction. In the GTA longer delays are tolerated. Get an 8 month delay in Kenora and you'll likely get it kicked on an 11b.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
Well, I just got a 23 month delay in Caledon East, first due to lack of disclosure and then because the court ran out of time during my session. I'm guaranteed to get off all charges now, but the decent thing to do would have been to withdraw the charges.
2 years for court date on a left turn ticket is a violation EVERY TIME . . .
My major point though is that if I don't raise hell and protect my own rights, the court will just trample over them without any regard. The judge should see the case, and throw it out immediately, instead of waiting for me to challenge it. The court wouldn't kill anyone or steal from anyone (legally anyway). . . why are they breaking the law in this fashion???
Moderator
Not if the delay is, in part, because of a request that you have made yourself. Not if the delay is because The Court is indulging a request you make, that it is in no way obligated to.
As there is no hard and fast standard by which to judge whether an 11b violation has taken place, they must be considered on a case-by-case basis. This requires the defendant making the request.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks