Attorney General's Public Consultation for Traffic Offences | GTAMotorcycle.com

Attorney General's Public Consultation for Traffic Offences

I

iFly55

Well-known member
Special thanks to goldom1234 from another forum.

The Ontario government wants to end trials for POA/HTA offences; they want us to change to the AMPS just like parking/by-law offence tickets are handled in the Greater Toronto Area.

Traffic tickets will be managed by and I quote "an unbiased expert decision maker". Yes, my blood pressure is also rising reading that as well.

This is the proposal from the Attorney General: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/poa_consultation.asp

Details on how to submit your concerns to the attorney general are found on pages 9 & 10: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/POA ConsultationPaper Final_ENG.pdf

e-mail: poa-amp.feedback@ontario.ca
Subject Line: Administrative Monetary Penalty System for Provincial Offences

Consultation start date: March 3, 2015
Consultation end date: April 14, 2015

We don't have very long, please write and get the word out.
 
Uhhhhhhhh this seems like kind of a big deal? The consultation document is very vague about which charges would be dealt with through the AMPS and which would remain in court... you could interpret it as only charges that currently automatically result in a summons would stay in the courts
 
Done. I expressed reservations about whether the decision-maker would truly be unbiased, because if that person is employed by the government, they have a conflict of interest.
 
Brian P said:
Done. I expressed reservations about whether the decision-maker would truly be unbiased, because if that person is employed by the government, they have a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

When you attend traffic court, who pays the judge and the prosecutor? I was under the impression that it was the government.
 
It is. I don't disagree that the same conflict exists today.

Keep in mind that with the current system, usually in these situations, your initial case is heard by a JP (who does not necessarily have formal legal training), but if you feel that an error of law was made, you can file an appeal and have it heard by a real judge.

If the same concept is preserved then I don't have a problem with it (and said as much, in different words) but if that "administrative penalty" is applied with no possible recourse ... Houston, we have a problem.

The "administrative penalties" imposed by HTA 172, and other impoundments of personal property under "proceeds of crime" laws, are unacceptable and should never have happened.
 
If they had a class of tickets that don't go on the driving record, like the red light camera, I would gladly accept AMPS shafting. Of course that will never happen happen.
 
I suggested as much. Give people the option of going through this process as an option - and give them the incentive of applying only the financial penalty and removing all other secondary consequences including all insurance repercussions. For more serious offences, keep it as is. I pointed out that Ontario already handles red-light cameras like this, and the legislation for speed cameras (which was never repealed) is like this.
 
Part 1 Traffic offences are prosecuted by the municipality in which they are heard. The fine revenue goes to the municipality. The JP is paid by the provincial government, not the municipality. The screening and hearings officers employed for AMPS currently are employees of the municipality. A conflict does indeed exist.

If a motorist does not have to fear an insurance surcharge, those that can afford to pay the fine can drive however they like. I guess speed doesn't kill afterall.

If an insurance surcharge is an indirect penalty of an AMP, you inability to say 'I didn't do it' should concern all of us. Taking away one's right to a trial by labeling an infraction administrative is our justice system sliding down that slippery slope. Most said 'who cares, it's just parking' when they introduced AMPS originally. They never thought about the fact that they were supporting the loss of the right to be presumed innocent or the right to a trial with full answer and defence. Well, we're all about to lose it again, in an area that may impact many of us. Then again, people generally don't care about their rights until they need them.

It is also worth mentioning that this proposal is for the system to be administered entirely online. I'm sure your hearings officer will really hear your points by reviewing some form you submit online.
 
Last edited:
Just sent this:

In reading the AMP proposal I find that I am concerned that the concept brings the process of justice into disrepute. Toronto already has a system for dealing with parking infractions, which bypasses the requirement of going to traffic court. The information that I have on it, from people who have used it, tells me that it is incredibly varied in results. By this I mean that it's inconsistent. Many who deserve no accommodation receive it. Many who deserve accommodation receive none. The jurisdiction that will benefit from the fine proceeds controls the process. The hours are limited.
Line lines are long.

An AMP system could be a valuable ADDITION to the existing process, providing a possible means by which those who currently cannot navigate the court system might be able to receive justice. It should not supplant the justice system. There are times when the cool heads of those who do not directly benefit from fees received should be accessible to those who would otherwise be denied justice.

Make no mistake; a charge is a charge. Ramifications can be well out of scale with the actual infraction. We do not increase justice for all by "streamlining" the process.
 
I am concerned with the government's plan to opt out of affording Charter rights by making laws that look, smell, and affect like regular laws, but calling them administrative penalties. It started with ADLS suspensions. We all thought then that there was no way you'd lose your license just because you were accused of something. They did it. We thought there was no way you'd lose your car and license for a week for being accused of something. They did that too. Then we thought there was no way they'd take your license for three days for being accused of nothing (blowing a warn) and they did that. None of these can be reviewed.

Now they plan to remove your ability to say 'I didn't do it, prove it' all under the guise that they are no longer offences, but breaches of an administrative regime. All accessible online in some ejustice scheme. The reality is, administering the courts is expensive and they want to save money while having the ability to make more of it. It's business. They pitch the idea as greater access to justice while saving Ontarians money. The reality is, it's less access to justice and they make money. The public doesn't flinch because 'it's just for traffic tickets'. It was once 'just for parking tickets'. It's the reason they started this whole 'administrative' thing with alcohol offences. They were an easy target and the public at large is okay with targeting drunk drivers.
 
If implemented, AMPS will change my job in a big way. No more sitting in traffic court, for people who are just waiting to see if I show up, before taking their guilty plea. No more testifying for 'minor' offences, which is where I get practice for testifying in criminal court. As a coach officer, how am I to train a new recruit how to testify? Put him in front of a judge and say "sink or swim?"
I fail to see how this idea will improve the justice system. I can see how it will improve the conviction rates though.
 
Sarcastically, as I age my concern is that I will fall out of favour when I can no longer goose step or quickly raise my arm out straight in salute.

Too much "justice" is already profit driven.
 
Bike Cop said:
If implemented, AMPS will change my job in a big way. No more sitting in traffic court, for people who are just waiting to see if I show up, before taking their guilty plea. No more testifying for 'minor' offences, which is where I get practice for testifying in criminal court. As a coach officer, how am I to train a new recruit how to testify? Put him in front of a judge and say "sink or swim?"
I fail to see how this idea will improve the justice system. I can see how it will improve the conviction rates though.
Click to expand...

Glad to see that it's seen essentially the same way from both sides of the badge.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Glad to see that it's seen essentially the same way from both sides of the badge.
Click to expand...

Less overtime for cops showing up to see if the accused has shown up to see if the cop has shown up before pleading guilty? Sounds like a win-win with respect to wasting court time and resources, and has better potential for keeping the cops out on the street where they can actually do productive work.
 
griff2 said:
Less overtime for cops showing up to see if the accused has shown up to see if the cop has shown up before pleading guilty? Sounds like a win-win with respect to wasting court time and resources, and has better potential for keeping the cops out on the street where they can actually do productive work.
Click to expand...

At the cost of the public being able to exercise their right to being innocent, until proved guilty of course. Very few people are forced to exercise that right and justice costs what it costs. In addition without constantly testing the justice system, it cannot improve.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
At the cost of the public being able to exercise their right to being innocent, until proved guilty of course. Very few people are forced to exercise that right and justice costs what it costs. In addition without constantly testing the justice system, it cannot improve.
Click to expand...

Justice costs what it costs, but too many people were abusing the system when it comes to traffic tickets. How often have you heard the advice to request trial on every ticket in hopes of clogging up the system and increasing the potential of getting an 11.b walk on a deserved ticket?

When abuse becomes rampant, it doesn't take long before the powers that be start exploring ways to evolve the system in order to make it harder to abuse the system. This is one of those evolutions. Thank those individuals and paralegals who have unnecessarily clogged the system in hopes of getting a technical walk.
 
griff2 said:
Justice costs what it costs, but too many people were abusing the system when it comes to traffic tickets. How often have you heard the advice to request trial on every ticket in hopes of clogging up the system and increasing the potential of getting an 11.b walk on a deserved ticket?

When abuse becomes rampant, it doesn't take long before the powers that be start exploring ways to evolve the system in order to make it harder to abuse the system. This is one of those evolutions. Thank those individuals and paralegals who have unnecessarily clogged the system in hopes of getting a technical walk.
Click to expand...

If the system isn't geared to dealing with a reasonable percentage of the tickets given, in a court venue, then that's also a fault with the system. It would tend to indicate that it needs expansion. Denying people their rights is not the way to deal with the issue.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
If the system isn't geared to dealing with a reasonable percentage of the tickets given, in a court venue, then that's also a fault with the system. It would tend to indicate that it needs expansion. Denying people their rights is not the way to deal with the issue.
Click to expand...

Sure. Let's see everyone challenge each and every ticket just because they can, and scale up the cost of the system accordingly. Then raise everyone's taxes, or quadruple the fine amounts on tickets to pay for that expanded system that has been expanded for no reason other than to handle an abusive case load rendered by people hoping to swamp the system.

The AMPS system still appears to give people the right to a hearing. It may not be in front of a JP or a judge, but as long as there is a process, that should be sufficient for the vast majority of tickets that fall in a specific low-realm of penalty range.

If I read it correctly, the AMPS system would not apply to charges where there is risk of jail time or significant financial penalty, so those with the most to lose from a charge would still have opportunity for a full hearing before a JP or a judge. A careless driving charge would still result in a full trial process, while a simple speeding or failure to yield would not. The system in essence would reflect proportionality of due process to fit the charge and potential penalties that could ensure from a given charge.
 
griff2 said:
Sure. Let's see everyone challenge each and every ticket just because they can, and scale up the cost of the system accordingly. Then raise everyone's taxes, or quadruple the fine amounts on tickets to pay for that expanded system that has been expanded for no reason other than to handle an abusive case load rendered by people hoping to swamp the system.

The AMPS system still appears to give people the right to a hearing. It may not be in front of a JP or a judge, but as long as there is a process, that should be sufficient for the vast majority of tickets that fall in a specific low-realm of penalty range.

If I read it correctly, the AMPS system would not apply to charges where there is risk of jail time or significant financial penalty, so those with the most to lose from a charge would still have opportunity for a full hearing before a JP or a judge. A careless driving charge would still result in a full trial process, while a simple speeding or failure to yield would not. The system in essence would reflect proportionality of due process to fit the charge and potential penalties that could ensure from a given charge.
Click to expand...

The definition of "significant financial penalty" seems rather.... absent. We're talking about handing over the process of justice to people who have a vested interest in the outcome. That should raise an immediate red flag. The "significant financial penalty" doesn't weigh factors like insurance premium increases. Ask anyone who has tried to get an unwarranted Toronto parking ticket quashed about their experience with the process. There's a reason why people hire themselves out to handle it. "Fast, good, or cheap; pick two" also applies to the process of justice.
 
griff2 said:
Justice costs what it costs, but too many people were abusing the system when it comes to traffic tickets. How often have you heard the advice to request trial on every ticket in hopes of clogging up the system and increasing the potential of getting an 11.b walk on a deserved ticket?

When abuse becomes rampant, it doesn't take long before the powers that be start exploring ways to evolve the system in order to make it harder to abuse the system. This is one of those evolutions. Thank those individuals and paralegals who have unnecessarily clogged the system in hopes of getting a technical walk.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's indicative that we have too many laws that are overly restrictive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom