Attorney General's Public Consultation for Traffic Offences

[nobbie48]

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.

I don't know the real numbers and if a just system could be evolved but if everyone that challenged a ticket had to pay the real cost of court time, building upkeep, cops show time etc they would be discouraged from frivolous challenges. To be fair the court would have to pay the defendant for his costs if he won his case.

Never going to happen.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I don't know the real numbers and if a just system could be evolved but if everyone that challenged a ticket had to pay the real cost of court time, building upkeep, cops show time etc they would be discouraged from frivolous challenges. To be fair the court would have to pay the defendant for his costs if he won his case.

Never going to happen.

I realize that there's a bias toward the rich in our justice system, but you can't actually enshrine that sort of thing within it. If you do, then you're codifying a price on justice.

 

[jonmar]

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.

If people want to fight every charge they get and scale up the cost, so what? It's called rights. If you want to live in a country that offers them, there is an associated cost with guaranteeing them. You sound like you think there is something wrong with people taking advantage of their rights.

You seem to say that so long as a process exists to afford a 'hearing' you're okay with it. You know it's an online process right? So is there any harm done in your mind when a person charged with Failing to Yield says the accident wasn't his fault. His hearing's officer says tough beans after reviewing your form you were permitted to submit online.

 

[griff2]

If people want to fight every charge they get and scale up the cost, so what? It's called rights. If you want to live in a country that offers them, there is an associated cost with guaranteeing them. You sound like you think there is something wrong with people taking advantage of their rights.

You seem to say that so long as a process exists to afford a 'hearing' you're okay with it. You know it's an online process right? So is there any harm done in your mind when a person charged with Failing to Yield says the accident wasn't his fault. His hearing's officer says tough beans after reviewing your form you were permitted to submit online.

Those people clogging up the system by fighting every charge is what led to this. Congrats.

Yes, as long as I am afforded a hearing I am fine with it. I don't expect a full-on quasi-criminal trial over a minor infraction.

I am fine with an online process. An online process may actually make it simpler for most people to challenge their tickets. No need to travel to court. No need to take time off work. No need to spend hours sitting in court waiting for your name to be called. Do the online process in the comfort of your home and with the luxury of time in which to formulate your written dispute with the ticket without the pressure of a prosecutor or JP questioning you.

Your hypothetical failure-to-yield person can still claim the accident wasn't his fault, but the core element still remains a hearing on the failure-to-yield charge. Online hearing officer reviewing your submission or in-person JP making the decision is unlikely to change things much. That hearing officer may still say tough beans, as might a JP, but as long as there is an appeal or review process available, the essentials of due process are still there.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Those people clogging up the system by fighting every charge is what led to this. Congrats.

Yes, as long as I am afforded a hearing I am fine with it. I don't expect a full-on quasi-criminal trial over a minor infraction.

I am fine with an online process. An online process may actually make it simpler for most people to challenge their tickets. No need to travel to court. No need to take time off work. No need to spend hours sitting in court waiting for your name to be called. Do the online process in the comfort of your home and with the luxury of time in which to formulate your written dispute with the ticket without the pressure of a prosecutor or JP questioning you.

Your hypothetical failure-to-yield person can still claim the accident wasn't his fault, but the core element still remains a hearing on the failure-to-yield charge. Online hearing officer reviewing your submission or in-person JP making the decision is unlikely to change things much. That hearing officer may still say tough beans, as might a JP, but as long as there is an appeal or review process available, the essentials of due process are still there.

Nor would you get a full-on quasi trial, under the current system. Given that the majority of such charges are strict liability offences, for which only the act itself must be proven in order to prove guilt, the process has already been 'streamlined.' In the GTA you cannot plead not guilty by mailing in your ticket, but must instead hand deliver it to a court. Then it became more difficult to arrange a First Attendance. Now they want to put your ability to call that into question into the hands of someone whose job depends upon conviction.

Are you not seeing a trend here?

 

[griff2]

Nor would you get a full-on quasi trial, under the current system. Given that the majority of such charges are strict liability offences, for which only the act itself must be proven in order to prove guilt, the process has already been 'streamlined.' In the GTA you cannot plead not guilty by mailing in your ticket, but must instead hand deliver it to a court. Then it became more difficult to arrange a First Attendance. Now they want to put your ability to call that into question into the hands of someone whose job depends upon conviction.

Are you not seeing a trend here?

Sure I see a trend. They are trying to minimize frivolous requests for trial by raising an effort bar to show that you really want a trial.

This new system, should it be implemented as described, takes away a lot of the current inconvenience involved in challenging a ticket.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Sure I see a trend. They are trying to minimize frivolous requests for trial by raising an effort bar to show that you really want a trial.

This new system, should it be implemented as described, takes away a lot of the current inconvenience involved in challenging a ticket.

The request for a trial isn't frivolous; it's a right. Efficiency isn't necessarily congruent with the practice of justice, especially so when the 'arbiter' has ample reason for bias. Being able to challenge is meaningless, if you don't have a fair shake at winning.

But I see it's pointless to continue trying to ply you with the logic of a balanced and unbiased legal system, so I won't.

 

[griff2]

The request for a trial isn't frivolous; it's a right. Efficiency isn't necessarily congruent with the practice of justice, especially so when the 'arbiter' has ample reason for bias. Being able to challenge is meaningless, if you don't have a fair shake at winning.

But I see it's pointless to continue trying to ply you with the logic of a balanced and unbiased legal system, so I won't.

You haven't demonstrated that the proposed AMPS system will be any more or less biased than the current one.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

You haven't demonstrated that the proposed AMPS system will be any more or less biased than the current one.

It's hard to 'prove' something about a system that doesn't yet exist, especially to those who have already decided that it's a good idea. I've made my case.

 

[jonmar]

Those people clogging up the system by fighting every charge is what led to this. Congrats.

Your hypothetical failure-to-yield person can still claim the accident wasn't his fault, but the core element still remains a hearing on the failure-to-yield charge. Online hearing officer reviewing your submission or in-person JP making the decision is unlikely to change things much. That hearing officer may still say tough beans, as might a JP, but as long as there is an appeal or review process available, the essentials of due process are still there.

So your argument is that exercising one's rights has led to them being taken away? You think it's wise to trust the replacement system in that circumstance?

Unlikely to change things much? Well it will change that I cannot question the witness that is claiming I did something. I don't know how an Ejustice officer will make an assessment of anyone's credibility never laying eyes on them or listening to them speak. Reading words that are submitted online will all have the same voracity. Except that of the charging officer of course. That has always been held in high regard. The public's voice will now be silenced.

Sure I see a trend. They are trying to minimize frivolous requests for trial by raising an effort bar to show that you really want a trial.

This new system, should it be implemented as described, takes away a lot of the current inconvenience involved in challenging a ticket.

Do tell us how we show we really want a trial in the new system? Oh and justice isn't supposed to be convenient.

 

[griff2]

So your argument is that exercising one's rights has led to them being taken away? You think it's wise to trust the replacement system in that circumstance?

Unlikely to change things much? Well it will change that I cannot question the witness that is claiming I did something. I don't know how an Ejustice officer will make an assessment of anyone's credibility never laying eyes on them or listening to them speak. Reading words that are submitted online will all have the same voracity. Except that of the charging officer of course. That has always been held in high regard. The public's voice will now be silenced.

Do tell us how we show we really want a trial in the new system? Oh and justice isn't supposed to be convenient.

I suppose you think you should be able to have a jury trial over a parking ticket? That is in effect what we are talking about - how much due process and what format of process any given kind of offence is worth.

Proportionality of the adjudication system to the type of offence, as it is described in the proposal documentation, is relevant.

Before I go screaming, I would like to see the more fully fleshed-out proposal, including protections, that would be part of any final proposal. Right now this is just a request for comment, comments which in turn will help shape any final system.

 

[jonmar]

I suppose you think you should be able to have a jury trial over a parking ticket? That is in effect what we are talking about - how much due process and what format of process any given kind of offence is worth.

Proportionality of the adjudication system to the type of offence, as it is described in the proposal documentation, is relevant.

Before I go screaming, I would like to see the more fully fleshed-out proposal, including protections, that would be part of any final proposal. Right now this is just a request for comment, comments which in turn will help shape any final system.

I do not think a jury trial is necessary for a parking ticket. If you believe I think that, we should really end the discussion. I'm saying it is a dangerous practice to start removing the right to a trial or the right to be presumed innocent. I don't care what the accusation. Proportionality is already achieved with these relatively minor offences. The participants in the system are the lowest on the totem pole. JPs are not judges. Prosecutors and defence are rarely lawyers. All of that is cheaper than the higher tiers in the justice system. A system that simply assumes the enforcement agency always gets it right, unless you prove otherwise, online no less, is not a system in keeping with the rights in this country.

 

[nobbie48]

I realize that there's a bias toward the rich in our justice system, but you can't actually enshrine that sort of thing within it. If you do, then you're codifying a price on justice.

In a traffic court visit I saw a guy change his plea to "Guilty" because he couldn't afford another day off work. He gave his explanation and it sounded legit, not the usual "I'm a good driver" crap.

If the payouts for a overturn were minimal, say $150.00, it would compensate the minimal wage earners. Those making bigger bucks are more likely able to afford the day.

Expensive justice isn't really justice.

 

[inreb]

If people want to fight every charge they get and scale up the cost, so what? It's called rights. If you want to live in a country that offers them, there is an associated cost with guaranteeing them.

If you truly think you're innocent it's a good right to have and exercise. Anything beyond that is only another example of the rot this country is experiencing.

 

[daught]

If you truly think you're innocent it's a good right to have and exercise. Anything beyond that is only another example of the rot this country is experiencing.

Fighting tickets is a desperate attempt to avoid insurance shafting for breaking speeds limits that are proven to be set with revenue generation in mind.

 

[inreb]

Fighting tickets is a desperate attempt to avoid insurance shafting for breaking speeds limits that are proven to be set with revenue generation in mind.

The insurance part I can understand, the revenue part has not been my experience as my last 3 tickets were reduced to 15 over on the spot, so that might be debatable. Be that as it may, lying under oath is not a right. So jonmar can't use "rights" as an argument. Maybe he should have tried something else to make his point?

 

[daught]

The insurance part I can understand, the revenue part has not been my experience as my last 3 tickets were reduced to 15 over on the spot, so that might be debatable. Be that as it may, lying under oath is not a right. So jonmar can't use "rights" as an argument. Maybe he should have tried something else to make his point?

In traffic court you seldom testify, so no lying under oath. You don't lie at all you just challenge evidence.

 

[inreb]

In traffic court you seldom testify, so no lying under oath. You don't lie at all you just challenge evidence.

You mean like this?

 

[jonmar]

If you truly think you're innocent it's a good right to have and exercise. Anything beyond that is only another example of the rot this country is experiencing.

Who gets to decide which people get to exercise that right? The government is going to make it easy. No one.

The insurance part I can understand, the revenue part has not been my experience as my last 3 tickets were reduced to 15 over on the spot, so that might be debatable. Be that as it may, lying under oath is not a right. So jonmar can't use "rights" as an argument. Maybe he should have tried something else to make his point?

What does lying have to do with the right to have the government prove what they charge?
Administering rights is costly but not as costly as having none.
I don't want to trade mine so the government can make money. If I did want to, I don't deserve the right in the first place.

 

[inreb]

jonmar: If you know you're guilty of an offence and plan to plead as such do you need/want a court procedure for the government to prove this?