I'm pretty sure it's not an "extra" $25. It's not a "penalty for wasting the courts time." There are no additional penalties for disputing a charge and being found guilty of it. It would make the system unfair and prejudicial towards the accused.

I think it would also be illegal to make an accused pay an additional fee or sentence because they chose to refute a charge.

Correct. The victim surcharge (I think thats what it covers) is waived if you pay within 30 of the ticket being issued. If you dispute and lose (or pay after the 30 days), you have to pay that $25.

There used to be a $25 fee for filing a dispute... it was refunded if there was no conviction. The requirement discouraged frivolous disputes and helped pay for the processing and scheduling. Somewhere along the line they stopped charging it. The $25 reduction seems to be some sort of version of this.

This is what I was referring to. I didn't know they took away the $25 fee for filing a dispute. My last MVA infraction was years ago, and I remember seeing it on the ticket. I guess they took it away.

Sad they took this away, for exactly the reason you state. Frivolous disputes is a perfect term. Guy knows he is wrong, knows he was speeding or didn't come to a full stop.

But he takes it to court anyway, because he can. Multiply this by the hundreds to people doing this every day, and you are taking multiple officers off of our streets who could be protecting and doing good within the community. Waste of resources.

What you are saying makes no sense.
Say the dispute fee charge is $100. And OP disputes his ticket and the officer shows up. That is still taking the officer off the streets.
Is it right that people should be afraid to dispute their tickets because of that extra $100?
Having to miss half a day's worth of work to go dispute a ticket is also money out of the person's pocket.

I see officers ticketing downtown east side people for jaywalking. Is that really good use of resources?

Bottom line is, the court system is there to be some sort of check and balances and people should not be discriminated against because of $$$. Like it or not, that is how our court system works.

You want to get rid of the back log in our justice system, then allocate the money and reopen or build new court houses. Appoint more judges, more court clerks, and more registry people.

No you aren't understanding what I am saying. That's why it makes no sense to you. You take 1 portion of what I type and focus on that to create an argument.

Why would you be afraid? If you have a real case based on reality as to why you did come to a stop at that red light (such as dash cam footage), or proof that you were not speeding, or whatever other proof, then the fee should make no difference, because it won't apply to you if the ticket is overturned.

The problem I see, is advice like this:

There is a percentage chance officers don't show up, so people have a way out even if they are guilty. We have attempted to reduce this percentage chance by getting officers to more cases, we now pay these PO's OT rates to get them to go to these hearings so they make the charges stick. But this hasnt worked. People still go to court on the hopes that the officer doesn't show up, and in the instances where they get unlucky and he does, they just plead guilty and beg for a lesser fine.

My question to you: Why should these people be entitled to a lesser fine? They went to court fully knowing they were guilty. I believe in this instance they should be forced to pay for the costs related to dragging the ordeal out needlessly. That includes the cost of the person overseeing their bullshit, the officers time, and all the other costs related to their "frivolous dispute".

Actually yeah it is, have you ever driven through that 30 zone on hastings? There's junkies running all up and down that block, without a care in the world given to the laws governing how, where and when to cross the street. Pedestrians are hit quite often in that area.

Source: Two pedestrians struck by vehicle in Downtown Eastside | News Talk 980 CKNW | Vancouver's News. Vancouver's Talk

Or

Pedestrian struck by taxi on East Hastings Street | News Talk 980 CKNW | Vancouver's News. Vancouver's Talk

If they implement the above, I bet you a notable percentage of frivolous disputes will dissapear, and the extra money generated from those who stupidly choose to go through with it, will easily cover the courts expenses and they can freely add resources to the system until dates are much more manageable. (If you get a speeding ticket, you should be able to have a date within 6 months of that infraction). And again, there will be absolutely no change to the people like OP who actually have merit for their cases being disputed.

On this same topic, there is an added benefit:

All those N drivers who are currently disputing their tickets just so they can delay until they get their class 5's would likely fix themselves. Realistically though the government should fix that loophole so that you can't just delay your case for months until you get your full license.
___________________

Now you did touch on something which is a problem:

But you are thinking about this the wrong way. Again this is a governmental problem related to the current system. If we fix the amount of frivolous disputes, ideally an officer will be able to attend all of the court dates set for him and defend or have their ticket overturned. This win/fail ratio would be very easy to track, if a PO has a large number of tickets overturned, well that is obviously a problem, and the police force needs to deal with that. There are many leading and lagging indicators one could use to track performance relating to tickets and each individual officer. This is a very easy way to end what I am going to call "Frivolous ticketing".

"All those N drivers who are currently disputing their tickets just so they can delay until they get their class 5's would likely fix themselves. Realistically though the government should fix that loophole so that you can't just delay your case for months until you get your full license." I agree....the law you broke said you loose your N if convicted...and start all over again. If the crimninal code is broken but you are convicted after the penalty is changed, you are tried according to the laws in force at the time. Should be no different here, but it is.?

The argument can be made that ticketing DTES people for jaywalking is a waste of time and resources given that most of those people don't have money to pay for the ticket.
They don't drive so there is no DL to take away.
They don't own a car so there is no way ICBC can force them to pay off the fines before issuing them car insurance.
See, not everything is black and white.

Ideally and reality are 2 different things.
Officers are entitled to their days off, holidays, or other work commitments. Not all officers work the day shift, so is it fair that an officer cannot go home at the end of their shift because they have to show up for traffic court?

In regards to frivolous ticketing, perhaps there needs to be a police watch dog in place for filing complaints against officers and their frivolous tickets. Maybe officers need to be more accountable to avoid instances like OP.

Using criminal court as an example, OP's ticket would never have made it to court as crown would never have approved those charges. Actually, that gives me a great suggestion. Perhaps they should have it set up that the person who is ticketed can submit video/photographic evidence with their dispute notices and have the courts decide to follow through with the tickets or cancel them to avoid wasting court time and reduce some of the backlog.

As for the loophole in regards to the N, you have a point about that. But if it bothers you that much, then you should write a letter to your local MLA.
But let's play devils advocate. Say a 17 year old commits a crime and they aren't convicted till the following year when they are 18. So should the penalty be what is given to an adult or to a youth?
Oh wait. Our court system is based on precedents. so it's going to be hard to get rid of that "loophole".

so crack head junkies should be able to just avoid any and all laws because they are can't afford to be held accountable for their actions?

My point is that if every single idiot didn't dispute their ticket even if they deserved it, chances are PO's would waste much less time in court defending perfectly legitimate tickets. This would reduce the burden of time on this task, so that hopefully PO's would carry it out on a higher percentage chance.

I have no problem with this recommendation. BUT if they put this in and all of a sudden they end the issue of frivolous ticketing, and lets just throw out a number of 80+ percent of tickets which go to dispute cases end up sticking, then if you take your ticket to dispute even after the review, you should have to pay for the independant reviewer, as well as the JP's time and all the courts time.

AKA if you take your dispute and lose you have to pay 100, 200, 300+ dollars for being a pillock.

Criminal court and MVA are completely different. There can absolutely be different rules in place for each. Lawmakers just need to initiate a change for the MVA to be fixed.

Also about the MLA comment, I'm not just some numpty who comes on here and spits shit, I do actually try to influence some change within my community, which is probably why I come on so strongly on here. I don't just log on and see something I don't like and speak out against it. I have been battling for things like tougher action for people who drive drunk, people who use technicalities to get out of tickets, speed limit reviews, and a change in the ticketing system. So most of the time when I come on here, and a conversation like this starts, it's not the first time I've had that argument, most of the time I've been through that before, because I have been fighting for this for awhile.

As a final note, regardless of what you think the government is well aware of the issue with ticket disputes, and court dates taking too long and people being let off because it isn't worth the time of police. So they understand the system is broken, and they recognize that the burden of fixing it should be on those that are causing this currently honor based system grief. AKA look at their solutions:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/mov...200/story.html

I'd like to think the solution (the one I listed above, which admittedly needed better explanation) is more elegant than the one the government is proposing (the link). This was all outlined in the 15 page brief which was sent through to the ministry of transport, ICBC and a number of BC MLA's. The brief was a study which I had a small hand in, as well as many of the other speed sense advocates, and also a group of RCMP officers.

Say a 17 year old commits a crime and they aren't convicted till the following year when they are 18. So should the penalty be what is given to an adult or to a youth?

The penalty applied will be the one in effect when the crime was done...not when it came before court. Common to hear of criminals convicted of severe & violent crimes as a YO, who are convicted as adults, having their names suppressed because they were a YO when they did it.


Using criminal court as an example, OP's ticket would never have made it to court as crown would never have approved those charges. Actually, that gives me a great suggestion. Perhaps they should have it set up that the person who is ticketed can submit video/photographic evidence with their dispute notices and have the courts decide to follow through with the tickets or cancel them to avoid wasting court time and reduce some of the backlog.

So you are proposing a system where someone who has only heard one side of the story- the disputants, who would be the only that would benifit from lying and having the charge dropped, would be the only evidence heard to decide if it was worthy of going forward to court? The ticket "quality control" system in place now will bounce a VT for incorrect offence description, wrong section, wrong fine, wrong date etc. It gets cancelled and sent back to the issuing Police Dept.

There is no right answer to this question hence why I said not everything is black and white.
It is obvious fines is not a deterrent to those people to not jay walk.
Obviously ignoring them is not an answer to.
So what would you suggest? I hate to say it, but a lot of resources is devoted to the people in that part of town and it's sad to say, but it's still crackville.


Do you feel the same way with criminal court? If I go and shoot someone, should i go to court and plead guilty or would it be "wrong" to hire a lawyer and plead not guilty?

So if the driver wins, will the court pay the driver? Just like in small claims court, the loser has to pay the fees for the winner.

It's bad enough that the police have the power that they do in regards to the MVA, but basically if they passed this, the police is give all the power to be judge, jury and executioner.

If this was put in place, there is no need for the officer to offer their evidence and that their ticket is good enough.
And what ever the board says, is final. There is no appeal process.

It's a scary road if that is the case.

It's odd that in an area where it's very common to see people going 20+ over the limit, she chooses to pull over the guy who she sees in her rear view mirror way back in the distance instead of something that might hold up better in court.

Also, is there a way to get ahold of the court beforehand if you're not going to show? I feel like it's pretty irresponsible to just no show, wasting the court and other parties time, especially if they took the day off work to dispute it.

Sometimes they no-show cause of last minute commitments. If I remember correctly, someone said that they try to schedule the court date on a day the officer is scheduled to work. If the officer is tied up on a call, they can't just drop everything and go to court (for example, got called out to investigate an MVA).

If that happens, then count yourself lucky in that you just have to stand and plead not guilty and then you're done and your ticket is thrown out.

Both the crown and disputant are entitled to ask for an adjournment based on cause...getting caught in an investigation on the way to court would certainly apply. A new date for trial will be set and the disputant will be notified.

Just wanted to say something as well. If you have physical proof that can be submitted in person or electronically, you can always contact the officer that ticketed you or their supervisor and ask to show them what you have prior to going to court. If they accept and see what happened, they may just cancel the ticket right then and there and you're out of having to take a trip to the court house. And even if they deny it and continue on with the ticket, at least you're back to where you were anyway.