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.

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.

Since Ontario passed its street-racing legislation over two years ago, Legal Action has reported on this law’s positive results, praises, criticisms, failings and even unlikely suspects.

Earlier this summer the speed racing law was again called into question when the Toronto Star reported corruption within OPP ranks.

The Crown and OPP are investigating 200 speeding tickets issued by a single officer:

“Mahoney-Bruer, 49, was arrested and charged last week with three counts of breach of trust and one count of attempting to obstruct justice after an investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police Professional Standards Bureau. The 12-year member of the force is accused of using false evidence to lay charges against three drivers last month. He has been suspended with pay.

An additional 50 criminal charges – including impaired driving, dangerous driving and non-traffic related charges – in which Mahoney-Bruer was involved as an investigator, are also under review. Police say it’s unclear how old some of the charges under review could be. The OPP says a “small number” of charges have already been stayed by the Crown.”

Although the outcome of the case may hold vindication for many speeding ticket recipients, one of them told the Toronto Star that even if his ticket is revoked, he’s already experienced financial losses in towing, taxis and legal fees fighting the traffic ticket.

Paralegals who specialize in fighting traffic tickets say this evidence of police corruption reduces the confidence of the public in the traffic tickets being issued.

If you need help fighting your speeding or stunt driving ticket, contact Legal Action today to speak with one of our paralegals.

A recent article on the CityNews.ca website examined the case of Dale Lyle, a man who was so determined to fight a speeding ticket that he went to enormous lengths. Lyle is clearly not a man you want to irk. When most people get a speeding ticket, they simply pay it or ignore it. Not Lyle.

When the Bristol, England man got a ticket for speeding, he was not happy. Police claimed that he was caught on photo radar driving 160 kilometres an hour on a highway with a posted limit of 110. Lyle was incensed, claiming that his car at the time, a 14-year-old Honda civic, was physically incapable of driving 160 kilometres per hour. When police refused to believe him and drop the matter, Lyle retrieved his car, which he had already sold and hired a driving expert who drove the car at a local race track and confirmed that the vehicle would not speed past 136 kilometres per hour in any gear.

Many people would have stopped there. Lyle already had evidence that would help him fight his ticket, which threatened his perfect driving record and which could cost him $1700 CDN and a 6-month licence suspension. But Lyle was not entirely satisfied. He obtained the photo radar that supposedly showed his vehicle driving 160 kilometres an hour – something Lyle had already proven was impossible. On the video, Lyle noticed many vehicles speeding much more than he was and claims that police misidentified his car as the speeder.

After Lyle provided this evidence, local authorities dropped the ticket, citing “lack of evidence” as the official reason for not pursuing the case. Lyle is not satisfied, however, and told the U.K.’s Daily Mail newspaper in an interview that the system takes aim at motorists who have done nothing wrong, simply because most drivers will not go to great lengths to avoid tickets and will simply pay up. Lyle is now headed to court to try to get back the money — over $2,100 CND — he alleges he had to pay to prove his innocence in the first place.

According to Ontario’s auditor general, Ottawa police have been handing out more traffic tickets than any other provincial municipality over the past ten years. In fact, the number of tickets issued in the capital city has increased very dramatically, and what is more worrying for some watchdogs is that this increase comes at the same time that traffic revenues were transferred to the city.

The recently-released auditor general’s annual report cites theses facts as a potential conflict. Ottawa was allowed to keep the revenue from tickets in 2001. Between 1999 and 2007, the number of traffic tickets written up by Ottawa Police jumped 155%. No other area of the province has seen such a jump, leading to the obvious question: are the tickets just a money grab by Ottawa?

York has also seen an increase in traffic tickets, but only by 95%. Toronto has seen an increase of 78% in terms of tickets being written up. Other cities in Ontario are seeing increases of 50% or less. The huge jump in Ottawa certainly seems conspicuous. The auditor general, Jim McCarter, has been asking whether the traffic practices might be influenced by the desire to promote revenues in the city. However, he was not able to find a firm answer so he raised the issue with Ontario’s attorney general.

Ottawa police have their own explanations for the sudden spike in tickets. Police spokesperson Staff Sgt. Rock Lavigne notes that in 2002, the police targeted unsafe driving and speeding as top issues and as a result hired 18 officers for the city’s traffic enforcement and escort unit. The 42-member-strong-team can better catch aggressive drivers and speeding drivers, Lavigne notes. The fact that tickets increased by a third within the first year the new officers were hired does seem to suggest the extra officers may have played a role in the ticket increases. Lavigne also says that the city’s growth in 2001 may explain the extra tickets. In that year, the Ottawa police expanded their jurisdiction, which now includes Rideau, Osgoode, Goulbourn, Kanata, West Carleton, Cumberland, and Rockcliffe Park

Still, watchdogs find it hard to ignore that the money from tickets does into Ottawa’s general revenue coffers (once a small fraction of the proceeds are granted to the province). Ottawa’s police services board rejects that idea that there is anything underhanded or self-serving in the writing of tickets. According to West Carleton-March Councillor Eli El-Chantiry, who also served on the city’s police services board, Ottawa is simply proving more effective and innovative in clamping down on speeding.

In the past month, Ontario’s ministry of transportation has introduced a number of new proposals aimed at curbing car accidents involving young drivers. The proposed changes would severely limit the number of passengers young drivers are allowed to have in the car and would include a zero-tolerance policy on alcohol and speeding.

Under current legislation, young drivers are allowed to have as many passengers as they wish during the daytime and may only have one passenger who is a minor between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m. for the first six months of a G2 license only. With the proposed changes, young drivers would only be allowed to drive one passenger under 19 years of age at all hours. The passenger restriction would not apply to adults or relatives.

The proposed legislation changes would also see very strict penalties for drinking and speeding. The first time a young driver gets a speeding ticket under the proposed changes, he or she would lose his or her license for 30 days and could face impoundment of their car. Similarly, the driver would face a 30 day license suspension the first time he or she blew 0.01 on a breathalyzer. Under current legislation, a driver needs 15 demerit points to have their driving privileges revoked. Subsequent drinking or speeding violations would result in longer suspensions and even permanent suspension of driving privileges.

Many of the proposed changes have come about because of persistent lobbying by grieving parents. Tim Mulcahy is one of those parents. His son, Tyler, was killed after drinking at the Lake Joseph Club and speeding over the Joseph River, losing control of his car and crashing into a guardrail. It was only after his son’s death that Tim Mulcahy learned that his son had many speeding tickets. Tim Mulcahy was convinced that if laws had been in place to revoke his son’s license for speeding and drinking, his son would still be alive today.

Nor surprisingly, the proposed changes to the law have created their fair share of controversy. Many young drivers claim that the proposed rules do not take into consideration the fact that some young drivers are responsible. Others point out that the new rules apply only to drivers between ages 16 and 21. Older drivers who get their licenses for the first time do not face the same restrictions or the same penalties for drinking and speeding, even though presumably their driving inexperience may also lead them to make some of the same mistakes as young drivers. The fact that only young drivers are affected by the suggested changes – and not all new drivers – also has some claiming that the proposed legislative changes are discriminatory.

One thing is for certain: as the new legislation is discussed and debated in the upcoming months, we are in for some fascinating discussions about driving privileges in this province.

We, like most drivers, have been following the talk about banning cell phones while driving. That’s why we were amused and intrigued to see an article in The Metro outlining how much cell phone bans might be a slippery slope.

Writer Alan Cross argues that we shouldn’t just be worried about cell phones. The very changing nature of technology in our cars places more distractions in our vehicles than ever before. Cross notes that Chrysler and Audi already have Wi-Fi technology in their newest vehicles, allowing drivers to potentially check email or surf the Internet while changing lanes. RDS readouts and changing CDs also distract drivers from the road. Special iPod-friendly systems allow drivers to check their iPod play lists and choose music from menus while on the road, Cross points out, and some new audio systems in today’s cars are like huge iPods, complete with distracting screens and play lists to choose from.

Cross’s article raises an interesting point – while we may all agree that the person who causes a crash because he or she is talking on a cell phone instead of looking at the road is liable, we all do have distractions in the car. Reading Cross’s article, we can’t help but wonder at all the distractions that he does not list in his article. What about the tired mom driving with a Barbie DVD blaring from the backseat DVD player? What about the dad driving with screaming kids in the car? What about the distractions on the road, caused by other drivers’ weird fashion sense or odd air guitar licks?

While we may like to think that our cars are little bubbles, they tend to be little bubbles that have a lot of stuff in them – and that’s before we even get to thinking about non-tangible distractions, such as a driver’s worry about this month’s bills. The problem is that these little bubbles travel at a 100 km/h or better, so little can distractions add up to a lot of smashed metal and many injuries.

It may be popular and simple to ban all mobile devices and in-car devices that may distract a driver (although surely car manufacturers would balk at the notion that their high-tech audio systems might be banned). It’s not that simple, is it? Life is distracting and at some point we need to decide which unnecessary distractions cause more accidents. Do cell phones cause more accidents than iPods in the car? Have manufacturers tested the safety of Wi-Fi in vehicles? Obviously, more research needs to be done.

The whole issue raises a question about liability and personal responsibility, too. Do we need to be told when something is distracting to the point of peril? Obviously, so many  drivers were talking on cell phones while driving that mandatory banning seemed necessary. But who legislates for common sense? Do we need to outline exactly which distractions are ok and which ones are “too dangerous”? And who gets to decide which distractions fall into what category?

As legislation struggles to keep up with technology, it’s food for thought.

There was a lot of action this year in Ontario’s traffic news and in celebration of year’s end, we thought it might be a good idea to recap major events. If you’ve missed any of the stories and they interest you, this is your chance to get caught up. Just follow the link to read the full news coverage.

January 20, 2008: New Ontario Holiday, a Legal Loophole? Speeders and other traffic violators had the opportunity to exploit Dalton McGuinty’s hasty new ‘Family Day’ holiday.

February 29, 2008: Should Winter Tires be the Law? Ontario was contemplating following Quebec’s lead in passing legislation for mandatory winter tire use. So far this law has not been passed in Ontario but it’s interesting to note that the Quebec winter tire law has caused a shortage of winter tires for the rest of Canada!

Read the rest of this entry »