My letter to my elected representative

[Rob MacLennan]

It's true that the definitions of "stunting" were not voted on by the legislature. What the legislature voted on was a clause that said something to the effect of "the Lieutenant-General may make regulations defining ...", thus giving permission to the bureaucrats to define it in whatever way they wished. It really doesn't matter. The above e-mail correspondence confirms what I've suspected since the outset. The Legislature doesn't care whether this legislation violates consitutional rights. They're leaving it to the courts to sort out later (at our expense).

No politician is going to back down on something safety-related. "Think of the children ..."

Unfortunately you're read the situation correctly. Voting against such legislation, especially in an election year, becomes a massive club with which to beat your political enemies. It doesn't matter what the truth of the matter is; just how it would play in the media.

[djltoronto]

It's true that the definitions of "stunting" were not voted on by the legislature. What the legislature voted on was a clause that said something to the effect of "the Lieutenant-General may make regulations defining ...", thus giving permission to the bureaucrats to define it in whatever way they wished. It really doesn't matter. The above e-mail correspondence confirms what I've suspected since the outset. The Legislature doesn't care whether this legislation violates consitutional rights. They're leaving it to the courts to sort out later (at our expense).

No politician is going to back down on something safety-related. "Think of the children ..."

This is true, but I would like to question my MPP on the fact that he voted on a "yet to be defined" bill, emphasizing that he handed over his power (my vote) without even reading what the definition was. This is (IMHO) what should make it to media. Highlighting that the MASSIVE potential for judgement error is now possble (roadside), and it's all because our MPP's thought it wise to sign a blank check - if you know what I mean.

Anyone have dates, details, links to more info.

[Rob MacLennan]

Assent dates, etc., can be found on the e-laws website in the specific listings.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/index.htmlIf you take the time to read through the HTA, you'll be amazed at the number of entries stating things like, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations...."

[eastcoast_gsx]

IMHO that's the wrong tack to take. Beating up on your rep will gain you nothing. A little sideways shaming isn't bad though.

The response was an attempt to lay it on the Liberal's doorstep. Attack it on that front, because we know that ALL parties voted for it. Use the fact that your elected rep is supposed to be your advocate, whether or not he's a member of the ruling party, as a crowbar to leverage co-operation.

Starting an argument with a subordinate won't give your cause any traction. Piss off the non-elected functionary and your concerns will never reach the elected official.

Thats what I had written but decided to axe it... lol.

Keep up with this approach and the responses will cease all together.

[NiteshadeTA]

Meh. It's pretty much a lost cause at this point.

Nites

[djltoronto]

Meh. It's pretty much a lost cause at this point.

Nites

But what about this quote?

Who knows, but I am going to ride this all the way.

Nites

[eastcoast_gsx]

But what about this quote?

Twilight zone

[Brian P]

Meh. It's pretty much a lost cause at this point.

Nites

I wouldn't say it's a "lost cause", I'd rather say that it needs to be pursued in a different direction - in the courts.

The legislature is not going to reverse course without being forced to by the courts. The police won't change unfair enforcement policies unless they get sued for malpractice or malicious prosecution enough times. "Reasonable and probable grounds" isn't something with a black and white definition - it is set over a period of time based on court cases.

The trouble there is that whatever test cases may be in the works, are surely under client/solicitor privilege right now (i.e. the information is being kept between the involved parties, not thrown out for the media before the trial happens).

[NiteshadeTA]

But what about this quote?

Dude. I rode it all the way. Besides waiting for an email coming back from the attourney General, this is it. I am still waiting on that.

Personally I want emails from the Mpp's themselves not their henchpeople. That way they can be hanged later should it be found that the HTA is currently unconstitutional.

Nites

[Rob MacLennan]

Dude. I rode it all the way. Besides waiting for an email coming back from the attourney General, this is it. I am still waiting on that.

Personally I want emails from the Mpp's themselves not their henchpeople. That way they can be hanged later should it be found that the HTA is currently unconstitutional.

Nites

They can be "hanged" for it anyway, as the people they detail to respond to such enquiries answer in their name.

[eastcoast_gsx]

No charges, no crime, seizure of items.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/12/20/seizure.html

[AdRath]

No charges, no crime, seizure of items.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/12/20/seizure.html

It will be interesting to follow this case I hope we hear updates because it would set the ground work for a challenge of Bill 203. Seizure of property without being proven guilty of anything.

[eastcoast_gsx]

It will be interesting to follow this case I hope we hear updates because it would set the ground work for a challenge of Bill 203. Seizure of property without being proven guilty of anything.

Well 203 is only an admin seizure... this is probably how they get around the sticky part.

[AdRath]

Well 203 is only an admin seizure... this is probably how they get around the sticky part.

I see... damn. I had hope for a brief second.

[Brian P]

Regardless of the eventual outcome, that case is indicative of how long it can take for constitutional challenges to occur. I don't know when the Civil Remedies Act came into effect (2000? 2001) but the charge in that case was from 2003, and it's only being heard now.

[Rob MacLennan]

I don't think that the challenge in that article will stand either, unless it's upheld on the theory that the seized items must be released to the owner within a reasonable time, should no charges be filed. Police shouldn't be stopped from seizing potential physical evidence of a crime, however they can't retain it forever on a whim.

The administrative suspensions under HTA 172.0 don't even make passing reference to the vehicle being evidence in a criminal case. It's under the theory that to leave the charged individual in possession of the vehicle is contrary to public safety. This is what might be challenged.