Within days of being in effect, Ontario’s new alcohol ban for drivers 21 and under has resulted in five suspended licenses and one application to the Supreme Court for an amendment based on age bias.

Drivers holding G1 or G2 permits in the graduated licencing system are already restricted to a zero-alcohol blood level restriction and as of August 1, 2010, Ontario requires all drivers under the age of 22 to adhere to this policy.

The province amended their youth driving legislation in response to a campaign led by Tim Mulcahy, who lost his 20-year-old son to a 2008 car crash caused by drinking and driving. (Source: TheStar.com)

Under this new law, even trace amounts of alcohol found in the blood will result in penalties including an immediate 24-hour licence suspension, an extended 30-day suspension and up to $500 in fines. A third violation could mean loss of driving privileges altogether.

While critics claim the law violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it is based on age, the Ministry of Transportation says the age restrictions are based on statistics. From CBC.ca:

“drivers between 19 and 21 are nearly 1½ times more likely to be involved in fatal drinking-and-driving accidents as any other age group. In the last decade, 235 drivers under 21 have been killed in alcohol-related collisions in the province.

“There’s been too much bloodshed, too many injuries, too much death,” [Sgt. Tim] Burrows [of Toronto Police] said. “Any amount of alcohol is too much when you’re driving a car.”

MADD Canada also claims drivers between 16 and 24 account for 33 per cent of deaths caused by drunk driving across the country. (Source: GlobalToronto.com)

Despite the statistical argument for the 21 and under alcohol ban, and although he disagrees with drinking and driving, Kevin Wiener, a 20-year-old business student, is contesting the new law. From MacLeans.ca:

“…people who are old enough to serve in the military, perform jury duty and elect governments are mature enough to decide if they want a drink with dinner.

“Statistics show that male drivers, for example, are more likely to get into certain kinds of accidents, but I think we can all agree that we would never see the government apply legislation selectively to one gender or race or national origin because of statistics,” he said.

“They seem to think it’s OK to do so for age. Maybe that’s because young people aren’t as likely to vote.”

The law needs to be changed to ban all inexperienced drivers from having any alcohol in their systems, but also to remove the alcohol ban on young drivers 21 and under, said Wiener.”

Mr. Wiener wants the Ontario government to follow Manitoba’s law which prohibits all first-time drivers from drinking for five years under their graduated licencing system.

If you are facing an alcohol related charge, do not hesitate to contact the professionals at Legal Action for a free assessment of your case.

Do you agree with Kevin Wiener or with the statistics?

Were the Toronto police granted extra powers for the G20 Summit, or weren’t they? Conflicting evidence from politicians and citizens caught in the crossfire cause confusion and debate.

Photo Courtesy of Emmanuel Lopez

The G20 Summit in Toronto took place June 26-27, 2010. One day before the event began, the Toronto Star announced there had been an arrest made under a new regulation the province secretly passed on June 2, 2010, providing police the power to arrest anyone within 5 metres of the G20 security zone who refused to identify themselves or agree to a police search.

This amendment to the Ontario’s Public Works Protection Act was not debated in the Legislature and kicked into effect on Monday, June 21, four days prior to the summit. While the new regulation appeared without notice the week before on the province’s e-Laws online database, official public notification in The Ontario Gazette wasn’t scheduled until July 3 — one week after the regulation expired.

From the TorontoStar.com:

“It reminds me a little bit of the War Measures Act,” said lawyer Nathalie Des Rosiers of the new regulation. Des Rosiers is a lawyer with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which has been working to monitor arrests during the summit. “This is highly unusual to have this declaration done by order-in-council without many people knowing about it.”

The amendment empowered “guards” appointed under the act the ability to demand identification and search anyone coming within five metres of the security fence perimeter. Those who refused to comply to police requests faced arrest and, if convicted under the regulation, up to two months in jail or a $500 maximum fine.

Read the rest of this entry »

Saturday, May 1, 2010, marked the initial stage for implementing Ontario’s controversial 13% harmonized sales tax. Critics maintain it’s a tax grab which will greatly affect the average family’s buying power. Proponents believe it’s an economic catalyst which will boost Canada clear from the recession.

In December 2009, Ontario passed the Liberal-proposed HST legislation to increase the cost of 17% of all goods and services previously exempt from the provincial sales tax.

As of July 1, 2010, consumers purchasing items and services, such as vitamins, gas, haircuts and Christmas trees, will be paying a combined provincial sales tax (8%) and federal sales tax (5%).

Softening the blow to taxpayers, the government cut personal taxes this year as of January 1, 2010, and promises a “transition” cheque of up to $1,000 for some families starting in June.

Premier Dalton McGuinty maintains this is a business-friendly decision which consumers will notice in a bigger job market.

From TheStar.com:

“We’ve indicated that one of the most important reasons why we’re going ahead with our package of tax reforms is to create 600,000 more jobs,” the premier said, citing a study showing the HST will “produce $47 billion more by way of investment in new business” in the coming years.

Last week, some companies and Revenue Minister John Wilkinson advised consumers to make certain purchases before Saturday, May 1, 2010, to avoid paying both taxes. (Source: cbc.ca) As per this initial transition stage, items which will be used after the law is in full-effect in July, such as theatre packages, airplane tickets and gym memberships, are now subject to the HST.

Liberal opposition members, like NDP Leader Andrea Horwath, has said the revenue minister’s consumer advice to “beat the tax” is an admission that the HST is going to cost families more than they can afford.

What do you think of Ontario’s new HST? Will the pain of higher costs at the cash register be the means for the greater good of the province?

In an effort to uphold constitutional rights, Ontario’s highest court recently ruled those charged under the street racing law will have a chance to defend themselves in court before receiving jail time.

Since its inception in 2007, we’ve been keeping you up-to-date with the many issues arising from Ontario’s new stunt driving legislation. The latest news included two separate acquittals by judges who ruled that the stunt driving law is unconstitutional.

Several weeks ago, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned those rulings and decided speeders going over 50km over the limit can be lawfully charged with what is characterized by as “aggravated speeding.”

From The National Post:

The stunt racing law was originally billed by the Ontario government as part of a crackdown on street racing. When it was passed into law though, the offence included fines and potential jail terms of up to six months in custody simply for driving more than 50 kilometres over the limit.

The courts have previously interpreted speeding as an “absolute liability” offence, which means someone charged is not allowed to present a defence. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that it is unconstitutional for an offence to include the possibility of jail, when there is no right to a defence.

The Court of Appeal ruling distinguished between the amount that someone is accused of speeding.

If a driver is charged under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act with speeding of up to 50 kilometres over the limit, it will still be an “absolute liability” offence, since the penalties are fines and not potential jail terms.

But if the charge is stunt driving, then a driver is entitled to present a “due diligence” defence, that reasonable steps were taken to speed by less than 50 kilometres.

The Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial for Jane Raham, the stunt-driving granny who was acquitted back in November, 2009. At her new re-trial, Ms. Raham will have the opportunity to explain why she was speeding and possibly avoid jail time.

Several examples of acceptable defences for stunt racing may include pulling out into a passing lane for a few seconds or providing evidence of a malfunctioning speedometer.

If you’ve been charged with stunt racing, you have the right to defend yourself. Hiring an experienced legal professional to represent you at your day in court will increase the odds of reducing or nullifying your fine and save you from jail time.

Contact one of our paralegals today for a free consultation.

You’ve heard of road rage, what about commuter craze? In today’s post, we report how a Toronto area woman succumbs to her anger and throws her hot coffee at a fellow commuter.

The incident took place in Union Station, Toronto, as commuters rushed in every direction to get to work. Elementary school teacher, Michael Beline, and Sales Representative, Christine Bedford, were heading in the same direction to catch the GO train.

From the Metro:

“Suddenly, the two strangers were together in the crowd. Beline thinks he may have cut ahead of her. The next thing he remembers is her angry voice, saying, “Don’t you f—ing cut me off.” He turned toward the voice and the woman threw the contents of her coffee cup in his face.”

Beline suffered second-degree burns and Bedford pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm, a lesser offence than the aggravated assault charged she had originally faced.

“The judge accepted a joint recommendation for a suspended sentence, 12 months probation and restitution of $1,500 — part of which will go to Beline.”

If you’ve been charged with assault, Legal Action can help you avoid jail time and keep a clean record. For a free consultation, please contact one of our qualified, professional and fully-insured Toronto paralegal team today.

Back in October of 2008, the Ontario government was mulling over a cell ban legislation to reduce distractions while driving. Within one year, this `distracted driving’ law is now in full effect. With the 3 month `probationary period’ ending next week, are Ontario drivers ready to give up their electronic devices?

It is now illegal to use a hand-held mobile phone, iPhone, Blackberry, portable DVD player or video game, and global positioning system (GPS) while driving in Ontario. The only exemption for the typical motorist is a 911 call.

Those caught driving with an electronic device in their hand will be fined up to $500. No demerit points are associated with this charge.

Why pass a law which some critics suggest is borderline unconstitutional? From CBC.ca:

“The Ministry of Transport said the ban is needed because driver distraction is a factor in 20 per cent of all road accidents. Bradley [Transportation Minister] said one U.S. study found texting boosted the risk of a collision 23 times.”

The government allows for a small window of time for Ontario residents to comply with a new law. Although the cell phone ban came into effect in October of 2009, most drivers caught chatting, emailing or texting up until now have only received a warning. (Unless officers used their discretion and charge offenders with more serious offences, such as careless or dangerous driving.)

According to the legislation boundaries, you may still use a hands-free device, such as Bluetooth technology, to talk while you’re on the road, and a GPS device if it is fixed to your dashboard.

Interestingly, some companies are requesting exemption from this legislation. According to The Toronto Star:

“While some cab companies, courier and trucking firms want exemptions from the law as regulations are being written, Bradley said they won’t be granted easily. “We would be extremely reluctant as a government to grant any exemptions unless a very compelling case could be made. Safety for the driving public … will be paramount.”

The government is looking at exemptions for communications devices for dispatching, tracking and monitoring commercial drivers.

Emergency services vehicles are also exempt from the prohibition on talking, texting and emailing using hand-held devices.”

What do you think about Ontario’s cell ban while driving?  Will you be complying?  What do you think about the possible exemptions? Please feel free to speak your voice in the comments below.

If you have been caught and charged with using an electronic device while driving, contact one of our licensed paralegals today to receive a FREE consultation regarding your Ontario traffic ticket.

Ontario drivers and other individuals seeking legal advice and representation now have more access to the paralegal expertise of Legal Action. On December 9, 2010, Legal Action opened a branch office to serve clients in the North Eastern part of Greater Toronto Area (GTA).

Since 2001, the paralegal team at Legal Action has been providing legal assistance to Ontario residents from their office located in North York on Yonge Street, north of Hwy 401. Click here for a map.

The small paralegal company has grown in that time, and many clients drive great distances for in-person consultations in regards to traffic violations, criminal charges and other paralegal services, such as small claims court.

Founder of Legal Action, Philip Alexiu, noticed the trend this past year and felt the need to be more accessible to his burgeoning clientele:

“We’re excited to provide a more convenient location for our Newmarket, Richmond Hill and Markham clients.” He added, “With all the unusual proceedings, press and confusion revolving around the speed-racing law, we have our work cut out for us.”

New and old clients will benefit in time and travel expenses with Legal Action’s new sister office in Markham. Situated near Hwy 7 and Woodbine Ave, just west of where Hwys 404 and 407 intersect, this is a choice location for clients travelling from all directions. Click here for a map.

The paralegals at Legal Action understand the stress that a potential legal conviction can create for the accused and that even minor infractions can have an enormously negative impact on one’s driving/criminal record, insurance rates and reputation.

Their mission is to ease their client’s burden by acting as a legal guide, demystifying the Canadian legal system and delivering strong and effective results without high-costs and headaches.

If you live in Ontario, are currently experiencing legal troubles and would benefit from a free consultation from a professional, contact one of Legal Action’s fully-insured Toronto paralegals today.

Ignorance is an unacceptable defence in the eyes of the court. So while you’re travelling this holiday season, our Legal Action paralegals wish to inform you of a commonly unknown traffic law that can cost you up to $2,000 and 3 demerit points for your first offence.

In April 2003, the Ontario government amended Bill 191, the Highway Traffic Act (Emergency Vehicle Safety) in response to the tragic deaths of four police officers within several years.

From the Government of Ontario press release:

“Many motorists don’t recognize the high risk front-line police officers can face during routine traffic stops,” Brian Adkin, president of the Ontario Provincial Police Association, said. “We don’t necessarily think of pulling off to the side of the highway to issue a speeding ticket or to investigate an accident as a dangerous part of an officer’s job. This legislation is critical to our members’ safety. It speaks to the commitment that the government has for front-line emergency personnel.”

The legislation requires motorists to slow down and proceed with caution when travelling on all highways in the same direction as a stopped emergency vehicle with it’s red lights flashing. When approaching such a vehicle, if the highway has two or more lanes and if it can be done safely, the driver must change lanes farthest from the emergency vehicle.

In all circumstances, drivers must take into consideration traffic and weather conditions when taking the appropriate action.

The amendment applies to all stopped vehicles (excluding school buses) with flashing red lights:

• ambulance
• fire
• police
• public utility emergency vehicles
• ministries of transportation, natural resources and environment

Those convicted of disobeying the law can expect to be dealt with severely:

1st offence: the fine will be not less than $400 and not more than $2,000.
2nd & subsequent convictions: the fine is a minimum of $1,000 to a maximum of $4,000, six months in jail or both a fine and jail sentence.
All convictions: will result in the addition of three demerit points to a driver’s record. The court can also suspend a motorist’s driver’s licence for up to two years.

Armed with this knowledge, Ontario drivers can confidently pass parked emergency vehicles and, in the process, possibly save lives, their pocketbooks and their driving records.

If you’ve been unfortunate enough to have been caught unaware of this law and issued a traffic ticket, contact our team of paralegals for a free consultation.

Hot on the heels of `stunt-driving granny’ winning her speed-racing case, another Ontario judge has followed suit and recently ruled in favour of a woman with similar charges. Both judges have found that the new stunt-driving law is severely flawed and unconstitutional.

According to the TorontoSun.com last week in Speeding law hits 2nd bump, a Newmarket judge threw out the case of an 18 year-old woman who was charged by police for driving 157 km/h on Hwy 407 in March, 2008. Alexandra Drutz pleaded not guilty and in response:

“Judge Peter West ruled the law isn’t constitutional because a person charged under the legislation can’t mount a defence even though the violation carries a possible penalty of six months in jail.”

This ruling echoes the decision from Judge Griffin of Napanee who overturned the conviction of Jane Raham, a.k.a. `stunt-driving granny’, a few months ago in September. While the province has appealed Griffin’s decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal (a decision is expected in January), the Attorney General said that he will wait for a ruling on Raham case before appealing West’s ruling.

The province maintains the speed-racing law is an important public safety initiative that saves lives and will continue to be enforced despite this second ruling.

From the Toronto Sun:

The law gives cops the power to impound an accused speeder’s car — on the spot — for seven days and sets fines of between $2,000 and $10,000.

Vincenzo Rondinelli, a lawyer in the Drutz case, said that despite the worthy motivations behind the law, it’s flawed. “Obviously it came on the heels of some very horrific types of crashes on our highways,” Rondinelli said. “No one is going to doubt that that is a problem and we all want to fight it. It just has to be done in a way that meets the constitutional paramaters we have in Canada,” he said.

Rondinelli and lawyer Paul Cooper successfully argued that the potential for a jail term, while remote, is an infringement of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the law doesn’t permit the accused to mount a defence or give reasons for why they might have been speeding.

Although the law will continue to be upheld by the authorities, this second ruling provides hope for the hundreds of people who have pending stunt-driving charges. If you have a speeding ticket or stunt driving charge to fight, contact Legal Action today and ask for a free consultation from our paralegal team.

Ontario’s street racing law has been under the gun since it was passed over two years ago. Among its various criticisms, last week we reported corruption within the OPP ranks. Further deteriorating the validity of the stunt driving law, a judge has ruled that the charges laid against a 62-year-old grandmother are unconstitutional.

Jane Raham was caught speeding near Kaladar, Ontario, while passing a truck on highway 7. Her speed was clocked in at 51 km per hour, I km over the limits for receiving the usual speeding ticket and resulting in a stunt driving charge. Raham’s car was immediately impounded and her license suspended for seven days.

In September, Napanee Judge G.J. Griffin overruled the conviction against Raham. He commented that the grandmother did not fit the typical profile of a stunt-driver and justified his decision by identifying the law as unconstitutional.

From CTV.ca:

The judge said convicting someone who is “morally blameless” of an offence that carries a jail sentence as its penalty breaches the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. “Essentially, his decision was that somebody who is speeding and doing nothing but speeding shouldn’t be exposed to the possibility of a jail sentence,” said Brian Starkman, Raham’s lawyer.

By law, speeding is considered an absolute liability. A driver can’t argue they didn’t know they were speeding and hope to get acquitted. However, the driver could very well be `morally blameless,’ meaning the motorist thought she was going at the speed limit even though she was not, Morton said. “The defence of due diligence is not a defence because of the way the legislation is written,” he told ctvtoronto.ca. “You would still be convicted even if you tried not to speed.”

The Ontario Attorney General has said that it will appeal the judge’s decision. (Stay tuned for future posts as we cover this fascinating case.)

Critics of the street-racing law contend that parts of the legislation are redundant and the definitions outlined are debatable. From thestar.com:

“The law defines stunt driving in several different ways,” Starkman said. “One of them is driving a car while you’re not seated in the driver’s seat. I’d say that’s a pretty good definition of stunt driving.

“But why should driving 50 (km/h) above the speed limit be stunt driving? It’s speeding. There’s another section that deals with speeding, and it already includes penalties for going 50 past the limit and more.”

It is important to note that despite Justice Griffin’s ruling, the law is still being enforced because of a reported 30% decrease in highway fatalities. In addition, the judge’s ruling will not affect street racers, as they would be tried under a different subsection of the law dealing specifically with racing and stunt driving.

However, the hundreds of currently open stunt driving charges now have the opportunity to be argued and dismissed. If you have a speeding ticket or stunt driving charge to fight, contact Legal Action today for a consultation.