Ontario police had yet another busy holiday weekend, as they laid down over 5000 traffic-related charges, including the 150 drivers who saw their vehicles seized under the province’s new street-racing legislation.

From the National Post:

OPP Sgt. Cam Woolley said one of the cars seized was that of a driver from New York who was clocked at 227 kilometers an hour on Highway 407. Woolley reported a 40% drop in fatal high-speed crashes compared to the same time last year — something he attributes to saving the lives of an estimated 80 people.

“If you can put this into perspective, that’s 80 more people that are alive compared to the same time last year, so this isn’t some little fluctuation,” Woolley told 680News.

According to these reports, it would seem that these harsh measures are starting to affect the public’s awareness of street-racing. The OPP certainly need to push these findings, considering the amount of controversy surrounding their speeding dragnets, as our blog has frequently brought up. Given the dramatic drop in fatalities, it seems the stricter aspects of the law are unlikely to be modified, at least in the short-term.

With the dangers of street-racing in mind, have the ends justified the means when it comes to legislation bordering on the unconstitutional? We would love to hear your thoughts in the comments section below.

Over the last six months, Toronto police have arrested nearly 500 people in the downtown area for outstanding criminal warrants, the CTV reports.

“A total of 850 criminal charges have been laid on 477 people taken into custody. The move was part of a six-month project in 51 Division titled “Round Up.”

Police say the majority of the people arrested were facing charges of violence, property damage, gun possession and drug trafficking in the downtown core. Authorities were able to make the arrests because of the tips received from the community.

Project Round Up will continue until the end of the year but police are urging the public to turn in people who have outstanding warrants”.

While CTV news doesn’t provide full details as to why so many warrants had been left outstanding, we are hoping that the Toronto Police will reveal more details on their operation as it continues throughout the year.

If you or someone you know has been caught up in the roundup, or are concerned about any outstanding warrants you may be facing, be sure to contact Legal Action today. We’ll be following these and other measures as they progress. Especially this is applied to Toronto domestic violence cases.

As the National Post reported last month, the federal government has finally set a new law in motion that will take aim at drivers on drugs, in an effort to curb impaired drivers under multiple substances. From the article:

OTTAWA – Drivers who get behind the wheel while high on drugs will face roadside testing and they could be ordered to surrender urine, blood or saliva samples at the police station under a controversial new law that takes effect one week from today.

Drivers who refuse to comply will be subject to a minimum $1,000 fine — the same penalty for refusing the breathalyzer.

The new measures, which grant police more power to administer drug tests, comes after Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) and other groups advocated for changes in Canada’s Criminal Code.

The new law may have spurred a response however, as drug tests from blood and urine samples may reveal that illicit drugs have been taken, but cannot indicate that the user was impaired at the time of driving. What kind of charges can be laid in the light of such evidence may be an issue for intense debate in courtrooms across Ontario.

A police officer would have to propose drug tests after noticeable impairment and may even have to see the drug being taken by the driver to have a sound case against the accused. Car searches may also be subject to future controversy.

Beginning July 2, drivers suspected of being high will be required to perform physical tests at the side of the road, such as walking a straight line. If they fail, they will be sent to the police station for further testing by a trained “drug recognition expert” and then be forced to give blood, urine, or saliva samples if they flunk the second test as well.

Read the rest of this entry »

As of July 2, Ontario’s controversial amendments to its impaired driving laws went into effect. These amendments give more power to police officers administering road and bodily fluid tests, as well as circumventing some legal loopholes that charged drivers often use to beat convictions.

From the National Post:

The amendments will make it easier for police to obtain blood samples after serious automobile accidents in which alcohol is believed to be a factor and reduce the opportunities for defendants to use “evidence to the contrary” arguments to try to avoid a conviction.

“The legislation will make it more difficult for those who drink, drive and kill to escape liability,” said Robert Solomon, a law professor at the University of Western Ontario in London.

The ‘evidence to the contrary’ arguments are used by defense lawyers to contest seemingly objective findings of blood tests, breathalyzers, etc. A frequently used example is the ‘last drink’ defense where lawyers argue that the accused was over the .08 limit because they ‘chugged’ their last drink, giving it less time to absorb in their body before hitting the road.

Other arguments could also state that drivers were stopped for improper purpose, a violation for their Charter rights.

Advocates against impaired driving have widely criticized defense lawyers of using these arguments inappropriately and in many cases judges have accepted them. It now looks as if these critics are seeing the changes they want.

Read the rest of this entry »

Criticism of Ontario’s eight-month-old street-racing legislation, which allows police officers to automatically suspend the license and impound the vehicles of speeders going 50 km over the limit, has increased in the light of new statistics concerning recent verdicts.

As the CBC reported earlier this month, over 5000 people have been charged under the new law, facing enormous fines over $2000. Yet of the 1,080 cases to go to trail as of April 1^st, only 33% have actually seen convictions.

“As of April 1, 1,080 street-racing cases have gone to trial, with 325 convictions. According to the ministry, 526 cases were reduced to speeding, while 229 were either withdrawn, dismissed or stayed.

The fines for those convicted ranged from $2,000 to $10,000, but some fines have been as little as $200

Police say the new legislation is making streets safer.

Julian Fantino, chief of the Ontario Provincial Police, says the criticism is “uninformed.”

Speed-related fatalities, according to Fantino, are down almost 42 per cent from the same time last year, proof that the tough laws work.

But in more than 1,000 street-racing cases that have gone to trial so far, almost half the drivers have pleaded down to a lesser charge that carries no roadside suspension.”

By then, their cars and licences have already been taken away, as well as the towing and legal fees, which aren’t refunded.

The latest facts concerning the law’s impact question the validity of the police’s increased power, as they lay down fines and suspensions where they used to only make charges. Since withdrawn cases see no compensation for tow fees, automatic fines, etc., the law will continue to be marred by its draconian implications.

With only a 33% conviction rate, the harsh measures being taken before cases go to court seem illegitimate and unnecessary. Dangerous drivers need to be taken off the road, but not without respect for due process or substantial precedents. The law’s first few months have not shown either.

The Ontario government has recently passed a long awaited ban on smoking while driving with children under 16, following widely publicized discussions regarding the risk second hand smoke presents to children in enclosed areas. While the law is reasonable, slapping fines of about $250 per offense, there is still the question of how it will be enforced. From the Canadian Press:

The province will launch a campaign to better educate the public about the dangers of smoking in vehicles with children, but hasn’t yet determined how much it will spend, Best said.

“We expect the budget will not be a big budget because we expect that there’s going to be a very high percentage of compliance with this piece of legislation,” she said.

But police will be expected to enforce the law once it takes effect, which will only make their jobs more onerous, said Opposition Leader Bob Runciman.

“There will probably be very little enforcement of this, in terms of checking cars and that sort of thing,” he said. “So I think education would be a critical part of this. It has to be.”

Ontario Provincial Police have said the ban won’t be difficult to enforce, as it already inspects for seatbelts and child car seats.

The Health Ministry’s website has more information on the new measures:

• Under the proposed law, any person – driver or passenger – in the motor vehicle, who is smoking while someone else under the age of 16 is present, would be committing an offence.
• The proposed law would apply to both moving and stationary vehicles, and would apply to motor vehicles, regardless of whether any window, sunroof, rooftop, door, or other feature of the vehicle is open.
• If the Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, 2008 is passed, every person who fails to comply with the proposed prohibition would be guilty of an offence and subject to a set fine of $250.
• Nova Scotia, Yukon, Arkansas, California, Maine, Louisiana, Puerto Rico, South Australia and Tasmania have already banned smoking in motor vehicles with kids.

What are your thoughts on the smoking ban? Is the age of 16 too low of a benchmark or too high? As a taxpayer, what resources would you approve of that would help police enforce this law?

It appears that the well-known Ontario paralegal firm X-Copper has declared bankruptcy, leaving over 6000 cases without representation. For the people facing trial – who have already made deposits between $300 to $500 dollars – it doesn’t look like they’re getting their money back.

Some are only now learning about the firm’s demise after receiving conviction notices from the government, seeing as there was no one to represent them on the scheduled court date. From the CBC:

“Gary Parker, the former manager in charge of training at XCopper’s office in Brampton, said many clients might not even know the company has gone out of business.

“So what is happening is that in the majority of traffic tickets … people are being considered ‘deemed not a dispute.’ They’re being convicted in their absence because no-one is showing up [to defend] them,” said Parker.

If the clients are lucky enough to be in court on the day of their trials, they can defend themselves.

So far, the company hasn’t given any public explanation of why it went bankrupt. Some suspect it could be linked to a series of reforms instituted by the Ontario government to regulate the entire paralegal industry”.

X-Copper has not officially made an announcement and its website has no mention of the loss. However, its co-founder has come out blaming the bankruptcy on Ontario’s new reforms regulating the paralegal industry, requiring all firms to comply with new standards put down by the Law Society of Upper Canada. From yorkreigon.com:

“The new rules were designed to regulate the profession as it would other legal professions, according to statements by then-Attorney General Michael Bryant.

To stay operational after the May 1 deadline, X-Copper was forced to change its name and began moving its revenue through a trust account administered by the law firm Dotsikas and Associates.

“Last year we billed $7-million and every single nickel went to the law firm in trust,” Mr. Matheson said. “Because the firm couldn’t release the funds in trust fast enough, we had to shut down.”

With the company defunct, the bankruptcy trustee for X-Copper has ruled the company’s client files and fees are an asset and thus have been seized.

“Those fees are gone,” Mr. Matheson said. “They’re finished.”

…Clients with cases filed after May 1 will be represented by Dotsikas and Associates.

As for those filed prior to May 1, Mr. Matheson said the law firm is contacting every client to inform them of X-Copper’s demise and offer its services for a reduced fee.

If you happen to be one of these unfortunate individuals left without representation for traffic offenses, we would willing to answer any questions you have about your case. You can also share your stories or views in the comments below.

While we can’t promise complete success in light of these events, we can still help explain the new regulation reforms on paralegals and how they can affect your day in court. Get the facts and get Legal Action.

One of the most controversial bills being considered by our federal Tories is C-61, which is being put forward as an attempt to revamp outdated legislation from 1997, an era not completely familiar with the dubious ‘grey markets’ of the Internet.

Consumer groups across the net have been signing petitions addressed to bill advocates, including The Honourable Jim Prentice, (P.C., Q.C., M.P. Minister of Industry) and The Honourable Josée Verner, (P.C., M.P. Minister of Canadian Heritage), urging them to amend certain portions of their proposal. Here is their response, as it has appeared in signers’ inboxes, which describes the new bill and addresses some of the public’s concern:

The Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-61, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act. The proposed legislation is a made-in-Canada approach that balances the needs of Canadian consumers and copyright owners, promoting culture, innovation and competition in the digital age.

What does Bill C-61 mean to Canadians?

Specifically, it includes measures that would:

* expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own; and limit the “statutory damages” a court could award for all private use copyright infringements;

* implement new rights and protections for copyright holders, tailored to the Internet, to encourage participation in the online economy, as well as stronger legal remedies to address Internet piracy;

* clarify the roles and responsibilities of Internet Service Providers related to the copyright content flowing over their network facilities; and

* provide photographers with the same rights as other creators.

What Bill C-61 does not do:

* it would not empower border agents to seize your iPod or laptop at border crossings, contrary to recent public speculation

What this Bill is not:

* it is not a mirror image of U.S. copyright laws. Our Bill is made-in-Canada with different exceptions for educators, consumers and others and brings us into line with more than 60 countries including Japan, France, Germany and Australia

Bill C-61 was introduced in the Commons on June 12, 2008 by Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josée Verner.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ontario’s aggressive anti-racing law continues to nab unlikely suspects, including members of its own police force. According to The National Post, two OPP officers have recently been charged with ‘street-racing’ in separate incidents, and their cases are currently being investigated by the OPP.

“Two OPP officers have been charged this year with street racing offences, while on duty and driving their cruisers. Constable Lloyd Tapp, 43, was charged with two counts under the Highway Traffic Act after he was allegedly driving more than 50 kilometres over the speed limit on Highway 35-115, southwest of Peterborough.

The officer was charged last month, two weeks after the alleged incident. The charges were not made public until earlier this week, when reported in the Peterborough Examiner.

The OPP normally has a policy of issuing news releases when officers are charged, Inspector Dave Ross said yesterday. “There was an administrative oversight, which we have since rectified,” said Insp. Ross, a spokesman in the OPP’s corporate communications bureau.

The charge of racing does not mean the officer was allegedly speeding alongside another car, only that he is accused of driving more than 50 kilometres over the speed limit. As a result of what he described as “evidentiary issues,” Insp. Ross said he could not disclose anything more than that the officer was on duty in a marked car.

Const. Tapp has been moved to administrative duties while his case moves through the courts.

The other officer charged, Constable Michael Deyell, is recovering from injuries suffered during a late-night collision with two horses on a highway, also near Peterborough. Const. Deyell is accused of driving more than 60 kilometres over the speed limit and is facing several Highway Traffic Act charges. He suffered serious injuries in the collision and the horses were killed.

His case has been adjourned until July and defense lawyer Leo Kinahan said yesterday that he is waiting for more information from the prosecution before deciding how to proceed”.

While it’s refreshing to see that no one is above the law when it comes to legislation like this, cases like these still leave a lot of questions. What duties were the officers undertaking at the time of their charges? Did they require the officers to speed and if they did, why were they charged? And if those duties did not require speeding, why weren’t their licenses immediately suspended while those of other citizens’ are often immediately taken under the officer’s discretion?

How these incidents will affect the legitimacy of this ‘street-racing’ crackdown remains to be seen.

Reported by the Canadian Press, Ontario’s controversial street-racing legislation has claimed yet another unlikely victim – a garbage truck driver going 112 km/h in a 60 km zone. The 58 year old man from Clinton ON was pulled over in Goderich and is facing charges for racing and failing to inspect a commercial motor vehicle.

Under the strict new law enacted last fall, the man’s garbage truck as been impounded for 7 days and his license has also been suspended for that period. He also faces a fine of at least $2000. This latest development marks what is certainly a first for the OPP’s aggressive “shock and awe” campaign against speeding, and is sure to place new scrutiny on the operation of commercial vehicles.

The man will have to answer to these charges on June 5 when he appears in a Goderich court. The outcome will be an interesting one and may place a greater onus on private companies to comply to harsher measures – even if their duties require timely collections. Even if the driver’s speed was excessive, for whatever circumstances, being labeled as a ‘street racer’ seems rather dubious, considering there were no other garbage trucks jostling for the pole position.