Stunt Driving Ruled Unconstitutional?

[adri]

Section 8 is generally seen to apply to property:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Your property is inviolate, save when it is deemed to be overwhelmingly in the public interest. Such is the argument in favour of impounding the vehicles of impaired drivers, but the same argument is on shaky ground when used to support the seizure of vehicles used by speeders.

Wish I had seen this earlier. How come cops can come out of their car, yell at me, and pat me down, when I'm just walking home from my girlfriend's place at night time?

So what's the verdict? Am I better off doing 10 over the limit, or 51 over?

[Rob MacLennan]

Wish I had seen this earlier. How come cops can come out of their car, yell at me, and pat me down, when I'm just walking home from my girlfriend's place at night time?

So what's the verdict? Am I better off doing 10 over the limit, or 51 over?

At this point you would still lose your vehicle for 51 over, but then have a good chance of getting the charges tossed in court. One puts a minor conviction on your record. The other costs you $1K+ off the blocks. Which do you prefer?

[zeekat]

In both rulings, the judges used the provision for jail time as their reason for dismissing the charges ... while good is not what we are hoping for because it gives the province an out by just removing the jail time from the penalties and still keep the rest of the BS in there.

What kills me and is worrisome is that the province will fight the judgements so that they can keep those jail time penalties in there ... why?

And finally for once, someone in the 'mainstream' media made a point of the 'regulations' scam after the bill was voted on especially since this is a new tactic being used by this government ... just remember Bill 126 earlier this year and the 'regulations' that will follow next year.

"Judge West noted in his ruling that the stunt driving provisions were passed unanimously by the Ontario legislature in what was billed as a law targeting street racing. The specific "regulations" however, which defined speeding as stunt driving and have now been found to be unconstitutional, were drawn up at a later date by the Ontario government."

The one good thing is that finally some judges are starting to throw a few bumps into the slippery slope that was started by Bill 203 and has continued since.

[Vlad]

Flex your rights, use them or loose them.

The magic sentence is "I do not consent to any searches of my person or property."

[82Seca750]

And finally for once, someone in the 'mainstream' media made a point of the 'regulations' scam after the bill was voted on especially since this is a new tactic being used by this government ... just remember Bill 126 earlier this year and the 'regulations' that will follow next year.

"Judge West noted in his ruling that the stunt driving provisions were passed unanimously by the Ontario legislature in what was billed as a law targeting street racing. The specific "regulations" however, which defined speeding as stunt driving and have now been found to be unconstitutional, were drawn up at a later date by the Ontario government."

The one good thing is that finally some judges are starting to throw a few bumps into the slippery slope that was started by Bill 203 and has continued since.

yeah....seems this Judge highlighted the point at which Julian Fantino stepped in to the process

I'd also argue that the all the "specific regulations" defining stunt driving (not just defining speeding as stunt driving) were written after the bill unanimously passed

Klees' initial bill went after connected nitrous systems and true head-to-head racing.....but once it was written into enforceable law (thanks to Fantino) we now have what we have

but the Judge is totally hinting on what was intially sold as a law targeting true racers versus the true outcome

[Rob MacLennan]

I've been corrected elsewhere. These weren't JPs that were involved in the cases in which the stunting/speeding portion was ruled as counter to the Charter, it was judges.

[Metastable]

Don't judges have to be lawyers as opposed to anyone who can be a JP?