[BoostedBB6]

Uh oh.....

The B.C. government is shifting traffic violations out of court in a move lawyers fear strips motorists of constitutional rights.

The Liberals are implementing amendments passed with no fanfare in 2012 to establish a new process for handling offences under the Motor Vehicle Act, similar to the paradigm shift made dealing with drunk drivers in 2010 when most impaired charges and trials were eliminated with a heavy-handed Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) regime.

The Ministry of Justice and Public Safety confirmed Tuesday that a two-stage rollout is planned to shift MVA violations from the criminal system.

Work is underway on Phase 1, it said, bringing in an electronic ticketing and online payment system; the new hearing system will follow.

Though the implementation date has not been set, the ministry maintained in an email that the Road Safety Initiative to transfer traffic disputes out of court “will create system efficiencies and make processes more accessible for citizens.”

“E-ticketing, coupled with a faster dispute resolution process, will mean that driver infractions will be recorded against driving records more quickly, thereby enabling interventions for high-risk drivers to be applied in a more timely manner,” the ministry stated.

However, lawyers who opposed the IRP scheme say this new plan is similarly offensive.

“It’s a frightening piece of legislation,” warned Vancouver lawyer Kyla Lee.

The IRP legislation is being challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada because it is a novel use of administrative law to address a criminal problem, which makes it easier for police, less expensive for government and dramatically increases fine revenue.

Aside from the concern of the province encroaching on the federal government’s criminal law-making responsibilities, the key change is that constitutional guarantees and defences available in a criminal prosecution are unavailable in an administrative context.

Under the amended law, police will stop writing “tickets” and electronically issue what are called “driving notices.”

“If you have a B.C. driver’s licence or have ever held a B.C. driver’s licence, you get a driving notice and are handled under the new scheme,” Lee said.

“If you are visiting from Alberta on vacation, you still get a traffic ticket, you get the right to have the usual court system.”

That’s one reason it’s unconstitutional, she believes, but adds the dispute and appeal process is similarly problematic.

Under the proposed plan, disputing a notice is a three-part process.

Initially, adjudication officers with the superintendent of motor vehicles provide an opportunity for drivers to plead guilty.

“They can offer you incentives to plead guilty, a fine reduction or giving you time to pay,” Lee explained. “It’s designed at the first instance to goad people into pleading guilty by giving them an incentive to do so. If you don’t do that, then you get to go to a hearing before the Driving Notice Review Board. That can be in any manner: it can be oral, it can be written, it can be in person, it can be in some kind of electronic form, or some combination of those.”



Read more: B.C. moves to eliminate court trials for traffic violations (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/moves+eliminate+court+trials+traffic+violations/10953200/story.html#ixzz3Wk4Rs7jL)

[smoothie.]

Can't wait to get bent over in private

[melloman]

You forgot page 2 bro..


Before you have your hearing, though, Lee added, there is a pre-hearing where the accused must provide evidence.

“Now you don’t have a right to keep your defence a secret and have your witness come and have them testify that ‘he wasn’t speeding, I was in the car with him,’” Lee said. “You have to disclose all of your witnesses and your witness statements to the Crown.”

The police officer must submit his or her evidence by way of a sworn report, but if the officer who issued the driving notice can’t do it, any other officer can.

“Reading the legislation, the officer who issued the ticket isn’t even required to provide evidence other than the ticket itself,” Lee said.

“It’s insane. The decision of the board in the legislation is final — you cannot appeal the decision of the board to any court and you can’t seek judicial review.”

Although traffic tickets are misdemeanours, Lee insisted the consequences can be large, ranging from significant financial penalties and lengthy driving prohibitions to the forfeiture of a vehicle.

What the government is doing is trying to eliminate the ability of people to defend themselves, Lee maintained.

She said she and her colleagues are waiting for the new scheme to be implemented to launch a constitutional challenge:

“I think the government is trying to lull people into a false sense of security, where they feel that these changes are for the good of the public, but it appears to be for the good of government coffers.”


See bold part... :fulloffuck:

[Traum]

Based on the Vancouver Sun news article, I am quite optimistic that the proposed legislation will not stand in a constitutional challenge. But the incident itself highlights how fxxking pathetic our provincial government is in attempting to stuff a quick one up our a$$es.

In this case, I am still relatively confident that we will not be screwed.

[Yodamaster]

Someone give me a gun.

Because apparently I'm guilty until proven innocent.

[The_AK]

Someone give me a gun.

Because apparently I'm guilty until proven innocent.

My thoughts exactly

[CCA-Dave]

Yeah, this is NOT good...

[z3german]

:rukidding:

[Timpo]

Why are they doing this?
For public safety or to make more money? :confused:

[Timpo]

Well guess what, in this economy everyone is suffering, I'm sure the BC Government is trying to turn cops into tax collectors.

People said it was bad enough for cops being able to impound your car for excessive speeding without you being proven guilty at court, and now this..

[van_city23]

Changes to traffic dispute process in B.C. under way - British Columbia - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/changes-to-traffic-dispute-process-in-b-c-under-way-1.3025036?cmp=rss)

The British Columbia government is moving ahead with its plan to shift traffic violation disputes out of the clogged court system.

The change was first announced in 2012 as a way to speed up traffic dispute resolutions and to "create system efficiencies and make processes more accessible for citizens," according to a statement from the ministry of justice.

Instead of receiving a ticket, drivers will be handed an electronic driving notice. Then instead of having the option of challenging the violation in court, a driver would appear before a new driver notice review board.

No more paper tickets

"E-ticketing, coupled with a faster dispute resolution process, will mean that driver infractions will be recorded against driving records more quickly, thereby enabling interventions for high-risk drivers to be applied in a more timely manner," according to the ministry.

About 14 per cent of the 500,000 tickets issued each year in B.C. are disputed and the government says the new dispute system will save $8 to $11 million per year by freeing up court resources for other work.

However, lawyer Kyla Lee says allowing a review board to handle traffic disputes is problematic because it "takes away all of the things that, as Canadians, we expect from our court."

"You have police officers who are entitled to detain you, they're entitled to handcuff you if necessary and when they turn on their lights behind you, you are required by law to stop your vehicle and present your licence," Lee told The Early Edition's Rick Cluff.

Concerns over lack of due process

"So there's a huge exercise of power over citizens and we need courts to keep a check and balance on that power."

Lee says disputing a driving notice under the new system will involve a three-part process. If the driver maintains innocence, they are obligated to provide evidence during a pre-hearing. After that, they will attend an actual hearing.

Police must submit a sworn report as evidence, but if the officer who issued the driving notice can't do it, another officer can, Lee said.

"At the end of the day, the review board is going to determine how the hearing is going to take place, whether you get to cross examine the officer, whether the officer has to come, what evidence you can present — all of that is determined by the tribunal," she said.

"You don't have the power to mount your own defence in the way that you want to."

The province says the planning and development of the electronic ticketing system is already underway. The new system for resolving traffic disputes out of court will follow at a later date.

this seems like some arbitrary bullshit

[geeknerd]

another officer can

WTF LOL? does that mean what I think it means? any officer can give a sworn report as evidence against you and fight you in court regardless of his involvement in the pull-over/ticketing?

Sure it will weed out quite a few court system abusers but if they're going to digitalize the ticketing and disputing process, they should really figure out a way to store video and readings with the ticketing process and require the police to submit the evidence first. Nah, too risky and costly (loss of ticketing revenue) for popo/government. Guilty until proven innocent for MVA stuff.

More the reason to get dashcams eventhough icbc is against it. In reality, they should offer discount for dashcam users. smh

Driving is a complex task that requires our full attention," said an ICBC spokesperson in an emailed reply to the Province. "While it is not illegal to have a mounted camera in a vehicle...we don't encourage the use of any electronic devices while driving because there is always the potential for it to be a distraction."

Maybe the 8-11$million saved can be used for police dash and bodycams

[SpuGen]

Merged threads.

[nsx042003]

When and if this passes, what happens to disputes in process that didn't get a court date yet?

[Soundy]

Well, congratulations, everyone who disputed a righteous VT in hopes that the cop wouldn't show... or to give you time to get your Class 5 first. This the natural escalation to your constant clogging of the courts.

[Nabatron]

So pretty much everyone is fucked! Going to pray every time you drive your vehicle not to get in an accident or any traffic violation...going to have to be careful as fuck!

[CCA-Dave]

Here's what I want to know...the CBC article states 14% of traffic tickets are disputed. Of those 14%, I want to know the following:

- % that are plead down to a lower charge, fine and/or penalty?
- % of disputes that are won by the accused (charge is thrown out)?
- % of disputes that are won by default due to the officer not showing up?
- % of disputes which are lost by the accused?

ie: how much "clogging of the system" is really happening by people who don't have a legitimate reason for going. I've challenged my fair share of tickets, and I've never NOT had an officer show up. That's a terrible reason for going to traffic court.

...which, for the record, isn't actually "court". You aren't seeing a judge, just a justice of the peace. Challenge a violation of your charter rights...now THERE is real court.

[twitchyzero]

the local justice system prevails again
this won't really affect me because ive yet to be pulled over but if it does get passed along with other BS laws/taxes it just further proves our gov't is FUBAR'd...Liberals or not. News like this just makes me wanna get out of here while I still can.

[Nabatron]

^say for instance they do pull u over for some sort of "violation" and you know u didn't do anything wrong well looks like your fucked! Just shows you how the government can fuck its people over by anyway they can!

[nsx042003]

the local justice system prevails again
this won't really affect me because ive yet to be pulled over but if it does get passed along with other BS laws/taxes it just further proves our gov't is FUBAR'd...Liberals or not. News like this just makes me wanna get out of here while I still can.

But to where will you go? Most if not all governmentsare like this

[Timpo]

More the reason to get dashcams eventhough icbc is against it. In reality, they should offer discount for dashcam users. smh

why is ICBC against dashcams?

[Timpo]

ok so when exactly is this whole thing going to become in effect?

[Tone Loc]

Well, congratulations, everyone who disputed a righteous VT in hopes that the cop wouldn't show... or to give you time to get your Class 5 first. This the natural escalation to your constant clogging of the courts.

So, because of a small minority of idiots, and IMO there will always be idiots who try to game ANY system, everyone else deserves to get pretty much all of Act 11 of the Charter revoked with respect to their own offences, "righteous" or not. Makes sense to me...

As much as it sucks, you can't legislate stupid. Personally, I think the recent court case where some idiot cyclist's - and equally stupid - family is suing everyone involved because their wife/mother was too inept to properly follow the rules of sharing a bike path is fucking stupid. However, it's a by-product of a justice system that ultimately protects everyone apart from a statistically small percentage of outliers.

[meme405]

So, because of a small minority of idiots, and IMO there will always be idiots who try to game ANY system, everyone else deserves to get pretty much all of Act 11 of the Charter revoked with respect to their own offences, "righteous" or not. Makes sense to me...

As much as it sucks, you can't legislate stupid. Personally, I think the recent court case where some idiot cyclist's - and equally stupid - family is suing everyone involved because their wife/mother was too inept to properly follow the rules of sharing a bike path is fucking stupid. However, it's a by-product of a justice system that ultimately protects everyone apart from a statistically small percentage of outliers.

It's a little bit more than that. I remember this stupid article going around about a year ago:

An ex-police Sergent tells how and why you should fight ALL speeding fines | The Free Thought Project (http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ex-police-sergent-tells-fight-speeding-fines/)

It was posted everywhere. That was just the first site I found it at again.

Basically there was a mass movement to overload the system, so that the police would have to "stop writing stupid tickets", or whatever the ridiculous end goal was.

Now everyone who shared that article, or followed that advice, can enjoy having their rights raped by the government.

For the record I am not disagreeing with you about this, it is entirely unfair to take away this current system. I just think that your idea that this problem was caused by a "minority" is wrong. There was a fundamental misuse of the system, one that ultimately ruined it for everyone.

The lesson here is, you can only poke and prod the bear so many times before it turns around and rips your head off. Consider yourselves all decapitated now...

[Soundy]

For the record I am not disagreeing with you about this, it is entirely unfair to take away this current system. I just think that your idea that this problem was caused by a "minority" is wrong. There was a fundamental misuse of the system, one that ultimately ruined it for everyone.

And for the record, I'm not disagreeing with you about any of this. I don't see this as a good move either, but I don't see it as being something completely arbitrary, nor a simple outright cash grab. It's largely a response to, as you put it, a fundamental misuse of the system that's supposed to be there to protect the innocent, not to be misused by the guilty to skirt their offences.

[Bouncing Bettys]

This is just the slippery slope which began with the Immediate Roadside Prohibition program for drunk driving from a few years ago. On the spot drivers are awarded up to: a 90 day suspension, 1 month vehicle impoundment, a safe driving program, the installation of an ignition interlock breathalyzer device, fines, and all the fees that come with it which can go upwards of $5000. If you were below the legal limit and received a fail from an out of date or miscalibrated breathalyzer or any other technicality, you have to wait for your day in court and suffer the punishment in the meantime which often results in the loss of a job. The intitial law was later ruled unconstitutional and modified, though the people who received their IRPs before the changes still had to serve out their punishment.

The government likely saw how the general public wasn't willing to defend drunk drivers or drivers with any level of alcohol in their system from their unconstitutional laws, and figured why not take away the rights of all drivers if it saves them a little money.

[Timpo]

And for the record, I'm not disagreeing with you about any of this. I don't see this as a good move either, but I don't see it as being something completely arbitrary, nor a simple outright cash grab. It's largely a response to, as you put it, a fundamental misuse of the system that's supposed to be there to protect the innocent, not to be misused by the guilty to skirt their offences.That's like saying let's deny all whiplash claims because it's the #1 scam for insurance company.
Because insurance is for people who actually got whiplash, not for those trying to work system out.

I won twice disputing my violation tickets(or maybe once, because one of them was the officer decided to drop the charge due to the circumstance/situtation), I would hate this new system because without me having a right to dispute my tickets, I would not have won those cases and cops will have the ultimate power over me.

I personally found that it's rare that cops do not show up, maybe used to happen all the time, but not anymore. So maybe that's the problem they should fix so that people won't file a dispute in hopes for cops not showing up.
Because the last time I was disputing my ticket, the other woman in the court room, she was disputing her speeding ticket, cop didn't show up, so the Justice of Peace told her that she has to come back so that he could hear both sides of story.

[Timpo]

This is just the slippery slope which began with the Immediate Roadside Prohibition program for drunk driving from a few years ago. On the spot drivers are awarded up to: a 90 day suspension, 1 month vehicle impoundment, a safe driving program, the installation of an ignition interlock breathalyzer device, fines, and all the fees that come with it which can go upwards of $5000. If you were below the legal limit and received a fail from an out of date or miscalibrated breathalyzer or any other technicality, you have to wait for your day in court and suffer the punishment in the meantime which often results in the loss of a job. The intitial law was later ruled unconstitutional and modified, though the people who received their IRPs before the changes still had to serve out their punishment.

The government likely saw how the general public wasn't willing to defend drunk drivers or drivers with any level of alcohol in their system from their unconstitutional laws, and figured why not take away the rights of all drivers if it saves them a little money.I'm not a lawyer so I might be wrong but..
Drinking and driving is completely different.

Speeding, not having N sign, ignoring STOP sign, etc... are all under Motor Vehicle Act or Motor Vehicle Regulations.

DUI/drunk driving are crime, it's under Criminal Code or Canada, not Motor Vehicle Act like speeding.

If you drink and drive, you will lose your job like you said, you will have a criminal record, you won't be able to travel outside of Canada, etc.
It's so much more serious than paying $5000 fine and getting your car impounded for a month.

I think debate here is Traffic Court, which is for Motor Vehicle Act.

[Bouncing Bettys]

IRPs and the possible elimination of traffic courts are very much alike since it gives the police all the power to become judge and jury. It started with IRPs and now this. Do you really think that the government would even suggest the elimination of traffic courts if they didn't already do the same for drunk drivers and their due process?

Under the IRP laws, drivers who, for example, may be below the legal limit or have not had a drink but receive a fail due to miscalibrated or outdated breathalyzers, receive immediate punishment. This could result in the loss of employment, before they even have the opportunity to go to court to fight it.

[Ohkun]

Lee says disputing a driving notice under the new system will involve a three-part process. If the driver maintains innocence, they are obligated to provide evidence during a pre-hearing. After that, they will attend an actual hearing.

Police must submit a sworn report as evidence, but if the officer who issued the driving notice can't do it, another officer can, Lee said.


So... Can I just send my buddy over if I'm busy on the court day?

[Tone Loc]

So... Can I just send my buddy over if I'm busy on the court day?

Actually, you can have someone else to appear and plea on your behalf (and show evidence, if any) if you are not able to make it to court.

My bad meme405, thanks for setting me straight on that one... just another reason why we can't have anything nice. Stupid people...

[Soundy]

I'm not a lawyer so I might be wrong but..
Drinking and driving is completely different.

Speeding, not having N sign, ignoring STOP sign, etc... are all under Motor Vehicle Act or Motor Vehicle Regulations.

DUI/drunk driving are crime, it's under Criminal Code or Canada, not Motor Vehicle Act like speeding.

If you drink and drive, you will lose your job like you said, you will have a criminal record, you won't be able to travel outside of Canada, etc.
It's so much more serious than paying $5000 fine and getting your car impounded for a month.

I think debate here is Traffic Court, which is for Motor Vehicle Act.

Quality post from Timpo... WTF is happening to RS? My whole world is topsy-turvy now... :heckno:

[Timpo]

Quality post from Timpo... WTF is happening to RS? My whole world is topsy-turvy now... :heckno:

what do you mean? I always only post quality posts :ohgodwhy:

[Timpo]

ok so it's not in effect yet

Dispute a traffic or red light ticket (http://www.icbc.com/driver-licensing/tickets/Pages/dispute.aspx)

[AndroidAAA]

Same thing that happened with parking tickets in Vancouver and Burnaby is probably what they want to do do with traffic tickets. Moving them out of court and to adjudication.

Here is a link showing how that process works, it is for parking tickets in Burnaby but I assume they are proposing something very similiar for traffic tickets
Adjudication Process (http://www.burnaby.ca/City-Services/Bylaws--Violations---Enforcement/Adjudication-Process.html)

some notes...

- The officer who issued the ticket will simply submit an evidence report, and will not be required to attend. There will only be one officer there (not necessarily the one who issued the tickets) who will answer questions for all the tickets being disputed for that day.
- The adjudicator will have no authority to reduce the fine amount, or do other things such as allow you to pay the fee without having any points going towards your driving licence.
- The adjudicator will only decide if the offence occurred or did not occur, only other times they would cancel a ticket is if there is an error, insufficient evidence, medical emergency etc.
- You have to pay the full fine amount plus an additional adjudication fee if you lose

What I have personally noticed from the switch to adjudication from traffic court, based on my experience with parking enforcement, is the conviction rate is substantially higher. It is very difficult if not impossible to get a ticket cancelled/voided the vast majority are upheld. Also the time it takes to dispute a ticket, and go to a hearing is significantly reduced.

I don't think this is the way to go for traffic tickets, maybe they can amend the current system instead of switching to adjudication.

[Timpo]

^ breaking the law for medical reason is not acceptable depending on who the officer is
Vancouver Island police nab 109 speeders en route to Swartz Bay ferry terminal (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Vancouver+Island+police+speeders+route+Swartz+ferr y+terminal/10909791/story.html)

[Soundy]

^ breaking the law for medical reason is not acceptable depending on who the officer is
Vancouver Island police nab 109 speeders en route to Swartz Bay ferry terminal (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Vancouver+Island+police+speeders+route+Swartz+ferr y+terminal/10909791/story.html)
Sorry, but this guy is a moron:


“It was 8:28 and we had to be there for 8:30,” Hodges said.
First, there are no half-hour departures on that route, so what's the hurry?
24563


Second, even if there was an 8:30 sailing, at 8:28 he would have already missed the 5 minute cutoff for ticket sales and had to wait for the next sailing anyway.

Hodges said he feels he was unfairly dealt with. “I didn’t even know they could [impound a vehicle]. I was stunned.”
HOW CAN YOU LIVE IN BC AND NOT KNOW THIS BY NOW???

[Timpo]

Disputed traffic tickets on the rise in B.C. (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Disputed+traffic+tickets+rise/10962640/story.html)

Disputed traffic tickets on the rise in B.C.

Under new system, lawyer says there will be no right of appeal

By Yvonne Zacharias, Vancouver Sun April 10, 2015

As the B.C. government moves to shift traffic violations out of court, data from ICBC show the number of disputed tickets has been on the rise since 2008.

Lawyers are questioning the planned shift of Motor Vehicle Act violations from the criminal justice system, fearing the move will strip motorists of their constitutional rights.

Numbers obtained from ICBC show the number of tickets disputed rose to 75,597 last year from 67,638 in 2008, with increases each year in between.

That’s at a time when there has been a downward trend in the number of tickets issued, from 551,598 in 2008 to 476,445 last year.

Under legal amendments enacted by the B.C. government, police will stop writing tickets and will electronically issue what are called “driving notices” with an online payment system.

Disputing a notice involves a three-part process, according to Vancouver lawyer Kyla Lee.

Initially, adjudication officers with the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles provide an opportunity for drivers to plead guilty.

Failing that, drivers can go to a hearing before the Driving Notice Review Board. Before the hearing, however, there will be a pre-hearing where the accused must provide evidence, Lee said.

The police officer must submit his or her evidence by way of a sworn report. If the officer who issued the driving notice can’t do it, any other officer can.

The decision of the board is final, with no right of appeal, she said.

Experts were unable to cite a precise reason for the increase in the number of disputed tickets but Sarah Leamon, a criminal defence lawyer specializing in traffic cases, suspects people are becoming more aware of the impact of being found guilty or pleading guilty by paying the fine.

Having a less than pristine driving record can affect a person’s career, especially if it is a driving-related job. “Employers get to be choosy about who they are hiring,” she said.

It can also affect car insurance and can even involve vehicle impoundments.

Leamon, who is with the Acumen Law Corporation, said disputed traffic tickets cover just about every clause in the Motor Vehicle Act, with speeding, electronic device use and driving without due care and attention being among the most common.

She is staunchly opposed to the province’s move to shift traffic violations out of the court system.

“I think it’s so dangerous to do that because you don’t get an opportunity to cross-examine the officer or go through the court process,” she said. “There is no access to justice.”

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/cms/binary/10962641.jpg

[Ohkun]

Sorry, but this guy is a moron:


First, there are no half-hour departures on that route, so what's the hurry?
24563


Second, even if there was an 8:30 sailing, at 8:28 he would have already missed the 5 minute cutoff for ticket sales and had to wait for the next sailing anyway.


HOW CAN YOU LIVE IN BC AND NOT KNOW THIS BY NOW???

He probably had a reservation for 9AM ferry.
Cut off time is 30min before the scheduled departure otherwise your reservation is not honored.