Police gain more ways to impound vehicles | Page 4 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Police gain more ways to impound vehicles

They've been given a lawful order by a court. If such orders aren't enforced, as such, then what's the point? Commit contempt of court; be punished for contempt of court.

Bottom line is, most dead-beat parents won't be able to earn income without a car........definitely not if they're in jail. One or both parents can be very abusive on one another using money or children as leverage. The system has to be simple and fair. No party should be better off than the other - both parents should find gainful employment and contribute pro-rata to the support and maintenance of the kids. Maintaining two homes by divorced/separated individuals is more expensive than sharing one. All parties involved should understand and accept that their standard of living is going to suffer. Maybe then, both parties will have incentive to work at their relationships or significant cause to end it.
 
Bottom line is, most dead-beat parents won't be able to earn income without a car........definitely not if they're in jail. One or both parents can be very abusive on one another using money or children as leverage. The system has to be simple and fair. No party should be better off than the other - both parents should find gainful employment and contribute pro-rata to the support and maintenance of the kids. Maintaining two homes by divorced/separated individuals is more expensive than sharing one. All parties involved should understand and accept that their standard of living is going to suffer. Maybe then, both parties will have incentive to work at their relationships or significant cause to end it.

These things are presumed to have been settled, at the time that child support was negotiated. If it's inequitable, then you submit for alteration.

The simple point is that THE CHILDREN should not be made to suffer. Incarceration is a pretty big stick to use on someone. Take away a license and the person might still continue to drive, in the same manner that a career drunk does. Threaten him with, then follow through with putting him behind bars, and it's a bit of a different story.
 
These things are presumed to have been settled, at the time that child support was negotiated. If it's inequitable, then you submit for alteration.

The simple point is that THE CHILDREN should not be made to suffer. Incarceration is a pretty big stick to use on someone. Take away a license and the person might still continue to drive, in the same manner that a career drunk does. Threaten him with, then follow through with putting him behind bars, and it's a bit of a different story.


If only it were that simple. For most people, the process is too complex and expensive, one or both parties are often unreasonable while and a fair resolution unlikely. You don't get what's fair or equitable in life, you get whatever the judgement says you get, based on some arbitrary formula designed to process the herd. If you can't afford a lawyer, you're SOL. If that doesn't break the straw that holds the camels back, you have some scornful ex-spouse manipulating, lying, sucking the life out of you and turning your kids against you. That's why people write it all off and walk away. They're probably emotionally, physically and financially drained and/or depressed from the start anyway.

That's just one side of it. I'm sure there are extremes in the other direction. The system is far from perfect - there's way too much beauracracy. Perhaps a better system would be a dependent income tax. When the dependent is born, the mother fills out the birth certificate with the name and SIN number of the father along with a DNA sample. The father is then notified of the designation by the mother and allowed 60 days to challenge the designation by submitting a DNA sample. Once a father is designated, a dependent tax is deducted based on income. If the father lives with the mother and files jointly, a matching credit would be available as an offset. If not, there is no deduction and the tax is witheld at source and the government sends the custodial parent a direct deposit every two weeks. We all know what happens if you don't pay, file a false return or get caught evading taxes.
 
Last edited:
If only it were that simple. For most people, the process is too complex and expensive, one or both parties are often unreasonable while and a fair resolution unlikely. You don't get what's fair or equitable in life, you get whatever the judgement says you get, based on some arbitrary formula designed to process the herd. If you can't afford a lawyer, you're SOL. If that doesn't break the straw that holds the camels back, you have some scornful ex-spouse manipulating, lying, sucking the life out of you and turning your kids against you. That's why people write it all off and walk away. They're probably emotionally, physically and financially drained and/or depressed from the start anyway.

That's just one side of it. I'm sure there are extremes in the other direction. The system is far from perfect - there's way too much beauracracy. Perhaps a better system would be a dependent income tax. When the dependent is born, the mother fills out the birth certificate with the name and SIN number of the father along with a DNA sample. The father is then notified of the designation by the mother and allowed 60 days to challenge the designation by submitting a DNA sample. Once a father is designated, a dependent tax is deducted based on income. If the father lives with the mother and files jointly, a matching credit would be available as an offset. If not, there is no deduction and the tax is witheld at source and the government sends the custodial parent a direct deposit every two weeks. We all know what happens if you don't pay, file a false return or get caught evading taxes.

There is already a system in place where a deadbeat can have his:
License suspended
Passport Held
Wages Garnished

Dude gets around all this by....you guessed it...applying for disability. Then said deadbeat gets it ALLL back, plus a cheque for being "disabled". FIRST HAND INFO.

And by the way, if the guy is a fairly obvious ******, all this process is NOT all that hard to access. all the guy has to do is just continue to ignore court orders, and ....well...be a deadbeat.

There is a process by which the mother of the child/children has to show that the "father" had contributed in the past, and that there is now not that support. There IS a process by which a guy can clearly state that their "union" was a one time thing, and that it was never intended that "this group would somehow form a family....." and that is taken into consideration. Usually her family is then mostly on the hook for "help from others" in regards to the kid/kids.
 
In a discussion I had today, a collegue of mine was telling me about a study done in the U.S. whereby two groups were unemployed for more than 19 months and had adapted to the status quo by taking advantage of social assistance programs. For one of the groups, each person was given a free car. As it turned out, the group that had been given the free cars had a much greater rate of re-integration into the workforce than the group without. It was concluded that the individuals with cars found great value in the increased freedom and tried much harder to maintain that freedom, retain the car and the ability to drive. It also gave them access to better paying places of employment that would not have been available otherwise, had they not had a means of transportation. I think that conclusion is important, as removing one's driving privileges only serves to exacerbate the problem.

My proposal for CRA to impose a dependent tax with credits serves to condition one at an early stage of a parent's obligation to provide support - just like paying CPP, UIC, employer health tax and income tax at source. People would be more informed about what they are getting into, the obligation wouldn't be such a shock and perhaps people would feel less helpless and/or enslaved, depressed and otherwise. No courts, no lawyers, no arguing or fighting.........just a smooth transition. It may even reduce domestic violence.
 
a real shame they didn't just swipe all of Leo Campione's assests upfront and nipp that sucker in the budd

ya know.....according to his ex-wife, Leo was just plain abusive scum that meant nothing but harm to his daughters

I know he made payments and everything....but forget all that stuff......cause he's a nasty man and deserves to have his stuff swiped because he pees while standing up

I think the laws should have more teeth
 
there should be a pill for men.
I heard they create one. I hope it's not a fake!

EDIT: My mistake, they are trying to create one.
 
Last edited:
BC is just catching up to Ontario. Ontario's civil forfeiture laws have allowed that for quite a while already.

I wasn't aware that they were able to take your car for speeding and sell it.
 
I wasn't aware that they were able to take your car for speeding and sell it.

The Crown has to apply for a civil forfeiture order and demonstrate to a court that the items it seeks to have forfeit to the Crown were or will be used in illegal activity. Simple speeding won't do it, but high end speeding can. The process is described at http://news.ontario.ca/mag/en/2010/10/civil-forfeiture-in-ontario-19.html , some of which is copied below.

Ontario's civil forfeiture law — the Civil Remedies Act — allows the Attorney General to ask the civil court for an order to freeze, take possession of, and forfeit to the Crown, property that is determined to be a proceed or an instrument of unlawful activity.

The Attorney General has used the Civil Remedies Act to:
-Forfeit two biker clubhouses in Oshawa and Thunder Bay
-Freeze biker clubhouses in London, Windsor, Sault Ste. Marie, St. Catharines, Toronto and Niagara
-Demolish six of the above biker clubhouses (under an interim court order)
-Freeze two rooming houses in Orillia
-Freeze crack houses in Hamilton, Chatham and Ottawa
-Shut down a notorious Hamilton crack house and transfer ownership to the City of Hamilton
-Forfeit another crack house in Hamilton (owned by the same parties as the first)
-Forfeit three vehicles under the new civil vehicle forfeiture law
-Forfeit and crush two street racing vehicles

-Forfeit a bike shop, stolen bicycles and bike components
-Take 23 guns, a stun gun, a cross-bow and an uzi sub-machine gun off the streets
-Forfeit 47 properties (31 of which were marijuana grow operations - MGOs) and frozen 48 more (includes 19 MGOs)
-Forfeit over $6.3 million in illicit cash
-Distribute approximately $1.2 million in compensation to victims of unlawful activity
-Award $5.7 million in grants to law enforcement agencies from funds remaining after victims have been compensated.
 
Unfortunately, in going over this, it looks like the penalties for being in the warn range were actually upheld. Another strike against Charter Rights.
 
Ftp!
 
In many American States they will suspend your drivers license for failing to pay your child support. Some places will actually jail you for it. Having been the child of someone who didn't pay his child support.

FYI... you can go to jail for not paying child support in Ontario under the "deadbeat dad" law FUUUUUUUUUUUUU!
 
So it applies to the unlicensed. Drinkers. Idiots who are probably drunk. Convicted drunks with terms on their ability to continue to drive legally, and deadbeat dads.....

and.......???? who is supposed to be alarmed....

Besides the alarmist Tinfoil Heads.

I would not want ANY of those people operating the car next to me.

I remember when reading the Road Safety Act 2009 when it was initially published that I could see the slope starting to steepen with the government broadening the use of vehicle impoundment for a whole host of things. I mean with all of the laws put in place over the last 5 years we have a situation where

Go to cottage on Saturday, have a few beers, go out in a canoe, get stopped by cop on a boat, blow over .05, lose licence for 3 days. Sunday comes around, you have to go home and so you take the chance, get stopped by a cop. Now you're driving under suspension, car is impounded for 7 days and well we know where it goes from there. If you already had a .05 ADLS in the previous couple of years, then you're looking at have to take some alcohol education program because this is a second time and that ADLS for boozing and canoeing will have cost your licence for 7(15?) days instead of 3.

Absurd ... yes. Possibility ... definitely. Now someone will say (?) that the boozing canoer should never have driven home from the cottage. On the flip side, that person got put into a bad scenario due to laws that have nothing to do with safety on our roads.

Just one more example to add to this insanity.

Well, this is how I see this impound / confiscation trend playing out.

Some more ominous statements regarding civil forfeiture laws from Manitoba Attorney General Gord Schumacher. "We started with the easier ones, the ones that are more obvious, but we will continue to push the boundaries of the legislation and continue to move forward in seeking other files that deserve our attention,"


The people of Ontario should be concerned about this trend. First it starts out as a seven day impound, a few years from now it will be a forfeiture under civil liability laws. This is a quote from Michael Byrant, ex Attorney General.

The use of these forfeiture laws will increase "We're really are right now on the cusp of exponential growth in the use of civil forfeiture as police services begin to use it in the ways that the precedents have set now that Ontario's highest court has ruled that it is constitutional.”
 
"It will include drivers whose licences have been suspended for not making family support payments."

my beef with this is that the government is really just testing the waters...throw in some legit ones and then slide this one in...what does being a deadbeat dad got to do with operating a vehicle safely? Nothing...so they slip it in there so that it gives them the excuse to expand it further later on...hey, no one really made a stink over it, or enough of one to have something done about it...

it takes quite a bit to end up on the deadbeat list for the courts to file the paperwork on you...but then on the other hand, it only takes someone smart enough with the system to get you put on the list...
 
"It will include drivers whose licences have been suspended for not making family support payments."

my beef with this is that the government is really just testing the waters...throw in some legit ones and then slide this one in...what does being a deadbeat dad got to do with operating a vehicle safely? Nothing...so they slip it in there so that it gives them the excuse to expand it further later on...hey, no one really made a stink over it, or enough of one to have something done about it...

it takes quite a bit to end up on the deadbeat list for the courts to file the paperwork on you...but then on the other hand, it only takes someone smart enough with the system to get you put on the list...

There are some times that using a stick, that has no connection with the original issue, is not only valid but greatly beneficial to society. The rest of us end up paying to support the spouses and children, of deadbeat fathers. Taking away their licenses is a method of enforcing a support order, without completely eliminating their ability to pay. The alternative is to chuck them in jail, for contravening a lawful order of the court.

Personally I'd prefer the latter, rather than the former, but then again I was the child of a deadbeat father who didn't care if I ate, had a roof over my head, or any clothes to wear.
 

Back
Top Bottom