So no interest on them? Lucky.

At my peak I made 25k a month, right now I make less than half of that but feel more purpose, and ultimately happier

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...ps47207265.jpg


:fullofwin:

I remember getting 2 when I was a broke fucker going to school. I completely forgot about them because I didn't get any notices or anything. I assume translink screwed up with their paperwork and I was off the hook. Unfortunately when I had to change over my licence they nicked me with the fines. I was a little pissed but I sucked it up and paid up. Annoyingly one of those tickets was for having a student ticket instead of an adult ticket. i was 18 and a student at the time so I didn't understand why the officer was being such a hardass. Dude even insulted me because I cheaped out on the ticket.

finally i get to use this

Compare this to the criminal justice system. Say you get sentenced to 2 years for dealing drugs. The government is trying to crack down on drug dealers, so the law is changed whereby people convicted now get a minimum 5 years in prison.

A person already sentenced to 2 years will not get their sentence automatically changed to 5 years because the sentence they received (2 years) was what the law allowed for at the time of the conviction. Likewise, people who did 2 years and were then released will not get rounded back up 10 years later to finish off the other 3 years.

I'm not sure when things changed so that ICBC could start collecting, but I feel that only tickets that were issued AFTER this came into effect should apply. Older tickets should still have to be dealt with under the old system, since they were issued while the old rules were in effect.


Now think of taxes. The laws change regularly and something you can deduct today may not apply to you next year. Imagine if Revenue Canada decided to retroactively go after people for taxes in previous years because of a recent change in the law? Would you think that was acceptable?

Your example is wrong, they aren't retroactively increasing the fines and re-charging people who paid, they're merely rounding up people who didn't pay at all. Using your example if they were charged with 2 years and served it, they're done. But if they never served their 2 years, they now do 5.

If they got a ticket 10 years ago, that was the date they were CHARGED. From that date, they had 30 days to file a dispute. Most people didn't bother and the matter was treated as uncontested.

Statute of Limitations does not apply in most cases as they were charged when the ticket is handed to them, likely at the same time they were caught. Statute of Limitations is would apply if they were trying to serve a ticket today for an offence that happened 10 years ago.

It's the same as a MVA ticket, the only difference now is having some teeth to collect.

underscore is right, the fine amounts aren't being bumped up to today's fine. I'm guessing a ticket from 10 years ago was probably a fair bit cheaper.

To further underscore's point, its more like if a person was assigned 2 years jail time 15 years ago. Never served a day, and just kept skirting the law. Now they have a way to force them, they would do 2 years jail time.

It's not like ICBC is using the current ticket value and applying it to all her old tickets. She just has to pay what she already owes.

On a side note.. It feels like the twilight zone to be in a thread where everyone is defending ICBC..

You know somebody is really fucking stupid when the consensus is siding with ICBC over them.

She was a minor at the time of being "charged" this is something that the system should have made her parents aware of at the time. They knew she was a minor, they must have otherwise there would be no paperwork leading to this now. I wont be suprised when a class action lawsuit is filed against translink and icbc for such cases.

It's a charge under a provincial statute. She wasn't arrested or detained so that's why her parents would not be notified. Also when she got those tickets the Youth Criminal Justice Act was not around (created in 2003). It would have been the Young Offenders Act (1984-2003), which I'm not familiar with but more than likely is about punishment and less about parents in comparison to the YCJA.

oh yeah she hasn't paid yet, she can still tell her parents

Since you're correcting others:

Ain't is spelled using a contraction. Also, ain't ain't a word.

isn't there a statue of limitations on things like this?

Well I have never seen a statue of limitations. Since it is just a fine, just a debt there is no statute of limitation, in fact I don't mind the gov makes her pay 10 years worth of interest let say 5%.

It's also "Sieg heil."

:p

:badpokerface:

this gentleman disagrees


you ain't don't got nothin on him.

correct me if i'm wrong, but she was convicted, just never collected on.

statute of limitations revolves around the ability to try a defendant, not collections. a debt is a debt and is not resolved until either paid in full or forgiven.