B.C. moves to eliminate court trials for traffic violations

[Lockout Casualty]

B.C. moves to eliminate court trials for traffic violations

Process criticized for stripping motorists of constitutional rights

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.”

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.”

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/moves+eliminate+court+trials+traffic+violations/10953200/story.html#ixzz3Wmt1LcFQ

This is pretty horrifying. WTF is our government thinking? I hope this passes and the dumbass Liberal voters start getting caught in the traffic traps. Maybe feeling the repercussions of voting with their asses will snap them out of it. Christy Clark deserves to be publicly dragged out of this province and booted into Alberta with a swift kick off the highest peak.

What did we do to deserve such government? Oh yeah, we're apathetic and let our leaders do whatever the hell they please. When they're done screwing up us long enough for an election, we forget all about it and reward them with majorities. In a way I'm glad to be leaving this place for a bit, at least our politics won't look nearly as bad against a red state backdrop.

[VanGnome]

Politics is getting dangerously close to what religion is in the bible belt down south, but only worse.

I can choose to ignore idiots who spout about gospel and scripture, I cannot ignore idiots with the ability to make decisions that may fundamentally affect my life in a negative fashion.

It's only been 8 months since I've been back in BC (was in Manitoba for 4.5 years), and first chance I get I will be voting in any provincial elections. The problem is, I fear, that there's really no good option; though I've not read up on the current political landscape here in BC for some time.

Just more damned homework for me to add to the pile of too many things I already have to do, with not enough time to do them all.

[theminister]

Sounds like time to key some MLA's cars.

[Lancaster]

Is this similar to the traffic cams years back? How once you receive a violation, your choices are either: pay earlier or pay regularly?

[Webster6]

Tired of paying officers to go to court already?

[grandmaster]

The author of this article is ignorant. He makes himself as someone who knows this area but clearly does not.

1) traffic tickets are not and never part of a criminal system

2) there is no such thing as a misdemeanour in Canada. That is a US term and does not mean anything in this country.

After seeing the above, I have no confidence that anything he says is correct. All I know from other more credible news sources is that the appeal system is changing. Nothing else.

[King_Canuckian]

Meh, perhaps this will allow police officers and courts more time to deal with real crimes. It's bs that a guy doing 90 in a 30 zone can get away with it when the officer fails to appear in court.

[Gurn]

In a case like the one above it IS bs that the cop wasn't there in court.

[goalie13]

I do like the idea of getting traffic violations out of the courts to free up the time and resources for more important things. People do deserve the right to be heard and to challenge wrongful tickets, but maybe there is a better (more efficient) way than having to go in front of a judge.

I heard on the radio today that 14% of traffic tickets get disputed. I wonder what the percentage of disputed tickets actually have merit versus how many are people just hoping the cop doesn't show up so the ticket gets tossed?

[King_Canuckian]

In a case like the one above it IS bs that the cop wasn't there in court.

I may have used an extreme example, but those that attempt to buck the system do this all the time. They dispute, reschedule and reschedule until they are pretty sure they have a pretty inconvenient time for the cop, and they get off.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Sold as helping the police serve the public. But actually just a cash-grab. Another cash-grab.

Time for a change in government.

[drummer4now]

I may have used an extreme example, but those that attempt to buck the system do this all the time. They dispute, reschedule and reschedule until they are pretty sure they have a pretty inconvenient time for the cop, and they get off.

I agree it's a flawed system..

Cop doesnt show once and the ticket is tossed out the window on discretion of the judge (99% is tossed out).. the accused delays for whatever reason and is allowed to appeal again.

The only good thing is you need a solid reason to change your court date like medical,etc..

[goalie13]

Sold as helping the police serve the public. But actually just a cash-grab. Another cash-grab.

Time for a change in government.

The provincial government doesn't get the money though. It all goes to the municipality.

Besides, it's a voluntary cash grab. Don't break the rules = don't have to pay.

[Lockout Casualty]

The provincial government doesn't get the money though. It all goes to the municipality.

Besides, it's a voluntary cash grab. Don't break the rules = don't have to pay.

Terrible thinking. Any idea how many laws have been stricken down because people broke them? Bad laws need to be violated to be overturned.

[Riviera82]

This proposal is absolutely ridiculous. From what I gathered from the article, this essentially guarantees that a ticketed motorist (whether guilty or not) has to pay the fine, and absorb the penalty points, and potentially pay another fine for having too many (6?) penalty points in a calendar year. And of course when all this happens a motorist's insurance rates increase for being a "high risk driver". BS!

This also gives the cops a licence to be lazy since they dont have to appear in court or have any actual evidence of an infraction against a defendant, just a sworn testimony of which could be a complete guess if it's in regards to speeding. It's going to be like shooting fish in a barrel and it's not fair. As another poster mentioned, this is just another cash grab. Typical BC.

[goalie13]

Terrible thinking. Any idea how many laws have been stricken down because people broke them? Bad laws need to be violated to be overturned.

I can't think of a single traffic violation I would consider a bad law. In fact, there are a few I wish they would enforce more often.

[goalie13]

and potentially pay another fine for having too many (6?) penalty points in a calendar year. And of course when all this happens a motorist's insurance rates increase for being a "high risk driver". BS!

That part is already true and has been for many years.

[Riviera82]

That part is already true and has been for many years.

Yes, but now your'e basically defenceless against it. The whole concept of paying fines due to having fines is the epitome of a cash grab.

[Lockout Casualty]

I can't think of a single traffic violation I would consider a bad law. In fact, there are a few I wish they would enforce more often.

I guess you enjoy doing 50 on Marine in Vancouver. I can't wait to get to the Burnaby side and drive like my car wasn't made in the 60s.

"Everybody's been speeding. We haven't seen a single person who's been doing the speed limit here." Think of the implications of the traffic cop saying that.

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2013/09/speed-does-not-kill-vancouver-roads/

Enjoy.

[Webster6]

I can't think of a single traffic violation I would consider a bad law. In fact, there are a few I wish they would enforce more often.

Tickets for having your blinker light out. I think you should be pulled over to be made aware of it in case you aren't. However it shouldn't be ticketed. That's nothing but a cash grab to fund their department. Basically highwayman theft.