Failure to produce ownership/insurance...what do you guys think?

[griff2]

Cute, but no. Also I wouldn't categorize an advisory committee as "the government", but your interpretation of that paper is clearly different from mine.

There is no case law I'm aware of that currently deals with this issue (the fact that it makes no sense to wait for a mailed card when we have email and PDFs) but eventually someone will get charged for not having the mailed slip and there will be.

I understand you're probably butthurt about me calling out your silly posts on another thread, but if you start nitpicking in every thread I post in you're just going to look like more of an idiot - the solution is for you to re-evaluate your life choices and mentality not to try to lash out hopelessly.

Lashing out hopelessly? Isn't that what you are doing in your post?

In any case, what you think is inconsequential.

The Superintendent approves the form of proof of auto insurance. The Superintendent is not "an advisory committee", but is in fact appointed by the government as per the Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997. (“surintendant”) R.S.O. 1990, c. C.25, s. 1 (1); 1993, c. 10, s. 52 (1); 1996, c. 21, s. 50 (1, 2); 1997, c. 19, s. 2 (1); 1997, c. 28, ss. 29, 30; 2005, c. 31, Sched. 4, s. 1.

The prescribed proof of insurance form currently approved by the Superintendent is the ubiquitous pink slip. Feel free to challenge that in the courts if you want.

 

[Neil_V]

The links you provided aren't actually law (the portions that say it must be a pink card). The latter in particular is simply an interpretation of the law; no different from my interpretation above.

The reality will make itself evident when someone eventually gets charged for showing a printed card and it winds its way through the court system.

The difference between "your" interpretation and decades-long government interpretation is that the government's interpretation of the approved form has been upheld by the courts for decades.

I don't have time to dig through the legalize of it all, but I can offer anecdotal; what would be about 15 years ago now, I got pulled over with a temp plate and temp insurance info (no slip, just numbers) I was given a citation and told to go to first attendance and provide insurance proof, which I did. Crown took the info and informed me that she would call the insurance in the next couple days to verify I was insured on the citation date, but also schedule trial in case my insurance did not come back valid. When all was good I received a call informing me the charge was dropped. Does this apply now? who knows. I often feel like the drive to generate cash outweighs acts of decency in this day and age

 

[unfaZed]

Lashing out hopelessly? Isn't that what you are doing in your post?

In any case, what you think is inconsequential.

The Superintendent approves the form of proof of auto insurance. The Superintendent is not "an advisory committee", but is in fact appointed by the government as per the Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997. (“surintendant”) R.S.O. 1990, c. C.25, s. 1 (1); 1993, c. 10, s. 52 (1); 1996, c. 21, s. 50 (1, 2); 1997, c. 19, s. 2 (1); 1997, c. 28, ss. 29, 30; 2005, c. 31, Sched. 4, s. 1.

The prescribed proof of insurance form currently approved by the Superintendent is the ubiquitous pink slip. Feel free to challenge that in the courts if you want.

You didn't understand my post, nor did you correctly evaluate the links he sent. The latter link is a paper written by an advisory committee (that by the way, recommends officially doing away with the pink slips). The former is a bill that was passed (not a part of the HTA).

Basically buddy saw the name on the post, and started googling "how can I prove that is wrong" - there is no interest in legitimate debate or posting.

Nitpicking aside, if we're being real about what would actually happen - unless the cop is a massive dick (or you give them attitude) as long as you have the printed record and explain that you printed out what your insurance company sent you there will be no problem.

If I ever do get a ticket for having a printed slip I will challenge it in court and report my findings but I doubt it will happen since I am courteous in my dealings with LEOs.

I might not win, I'm not saying my opinion is 100% correct, but the HTA itself (the law concerning keeping with you and presenting the insurance card) does not mention the pink slip.

 

[griff2]

I might not win, I'm not saying my opinion is 100% correct, but the HTA itself (the law concerning keeping with you and presenting the insurance card) does not mention the pink slip.

The HTA doesn't mention it because the requirement to show proof of insurance is not part of the HTA. It is part of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, and that Act makes reference to the showing of "a Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Card in the form approved by the Superintendent".

Whether the cop will give latitude is not at issue. The issue is what form is acceptable as far as current legislation goes. Everything else is charity or luck.

 

[unfaZed]

The HTA doesn't mention it because the requirement to show proof of insurance is not part of the HTA. It is part of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, and that Act makes reference to the showing of "a Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Card in the form approved by the Superintendent".

Whether the cop will give latitude is not at issue. The issue is what form is acceptable as far as current legislation goes. Everything else is charity or luck.

Our laws are purposefully draconian to give the police far reaching and insane power - so much so that how they enforce the law matters more than how the law is written itself.

I don't agree with this but its the way it is currently - the fact that HTA 172 can withstand challenges shows that the entire system is completely broken and the only way to fix it would be to vote in other people that would commit to fixing it.

The HTA is what matters because thats what you would be getting charged under and what you would make your argument based on (eg: The document I provided constitutes the original card from my insurance company and it contains all of the information it is required to have).

 

[griff2]

The HTA is what matters because thats what you would be getting charged under and what you would make your argument based on (eg: The document I provided constitutes the original card from my insurance company and it contains all of the information it is required to have).

Here is the schedule of HTA offences and their respective set fines. See if you can find anything in there showing an HTA offence for failing to show insurance for personal vehicles.

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/how-do-i/set-fines/set-fines-i/schedule-43/

 

[statsman]

...

 

[Bagman]

Did this happen DT Toronto? If so, show up to court or whatever with your valid/current permit and insurance and both charges will be dropped.

 

[TorontoBoy]

...The MTO and police have instant access to all the insurance data bank to verify valid insurance instantly........

...Care to provide links to your claims that MTO and Police have "instant access to all insurance data banks" This I gotta see.

Sorry, but the police have no such access. It was deemed a violation of the policy holder's privacy when the cops asked for it...

There is a project underway/completed that allows police to query the auto insurance web site. How accurate it is I know not, and if the project has rolled out to all police I also do not know. Ontario's IT record is not stellar. It seems that police departments do have access, but maybe not the capability yet to validate insurance roadside.

The last time I was stopped was a while ago I forgot to carry my renewed insurance slip, they did not have access, I received a ticket, which was dropped in court. A simple query would have been better.

Ontario’s IVP database houses the vehicle identification number (VIN) and mandatory coverage status of each insured vehicle. IBC maintains this database on behalf of the insurance industry.

In the spring of 2011, MTO extended access to the IVP database so Ontario law enforcement agencies can validate insurance. Now police officers can confirm mandatory insurance coverage right from their vehicles.

 

[hedo2002]

Yes an officer "may" be able to confirm if your policy is effective at the time of the stop, BUT until that section of the HTA is repealed, the law still stands, and an officer may at this/her discretion issue an infraction. You are still required to carry your proof of insurance, until the law is repealed. Which typically can take years, because generally they wait until other portions also require an update.

So carry your insurance, avoid the hassle.

 

[Benny!]

Lol this whole thread

 

[griff2]

Lol this whole thread

4000+ views! :lmao:

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Yes an officer "may" be able to confirm if your policy is effective at the time of the stop, BUT until that section of the HTA is repealed, the law still stands, and an officer may at this/her discretion issue an infraction. You are still required to carry your proof of insurance, until the law is repealed. Which typically can take years, because generally they wait until other portions also require an update.

So carry your insurance, avoid the hassle.

In addition the carrying of an insurance card is not for the use of police. It's so that your fellow motorists can obtain the information, in the event of an incident. In the long run it doesn't matter if an officer can or cannot perform a roadside check of your insurance information, because other motorists do not have that same ability.

 

[statsman]

An interesting academic exercise would be to compare the two statutes.
There is the Highway Traffic Act and the Auto Insurance Act.
Knowing how the government tends to work in these situations it's possible that one will accept a facsimile of the insurance card while the other will not.

 

[griff2]

An interesting academic exercise would be to compare the two statutes.
There is the Highway Traffic Act and the Auto Insurance Act.
Knowing how the government tends to work in these situations it's possible that one will accept a facsimile of the insurance card while the other will not.

There is no offence listed under the HTA for failing to produce an insurance card for a personal vehicle. The HTA refers to the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act with respect to insurance cards.

 

[chiller]

I have been "paper checked" many times over the past 18 years ... just carry your papers with you ...

 

[nearace]

I have been "paper checked" many times over the past 18 years ... just carry your papers with you ...

Exactly.

 

[unL33T]

Illegal stop? Why? You do know that you can be stopped for simple operator license and vehicle documentation checks, right? And you do know that lack of insurance among certain kinds of motorcycle riders is far more common than for other classes of vehicles, right? That's why.

#squidlivesmatter

Let's stop random carding of sportbike riders.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I have been "paper checked" many times over the past 18 years ... just carry your papers with you ...

While I think it's just plain sense to always have your docs with you other than the odd legit traffic stop, I've only been doc checked twice since 1984.

 

[statsman]

You would also require all of your orignal documentation if you are involved in a collision.