|
|
|
So a Field or dirt bike trail still has the stunt laws apply from what I can tell?It's getting more and more difficult to know exactly what's going on with the stunting laws. Now, in addition to HTA section 172, you need to read and understand the following:
e-Laws | Ontario.ca
www.ontario.ca
e-Laws | Ontario.ca
You would have to show me what gives you that impression. It is, however, rather problematic that they use the term "parking lot" as part of the definition of the term "parking lot." For example saying the definition of the word "blue" is "something that is blue" leaves a fair bit to interpretation.
This part.
Yeah, you'd have a hard time arguing against that one.
How would it fall? Courts dont decide if the laws are stupid. They decide if there was sufficient evidence that you broke the law as written. There isnt much ambiguity in the way the law was written to allow a court to interpret in a reasonable way.
Courts can also decide that a law oversteps, if challenged on Charter grounds.
Has a 172 charge made it that far yet? It needs a very specific person to invest that much time and money in attempting to strike down stupidity.
I believe that the law firm that represented the grandmother who was charged under 172 for doing in excess of 50 Kmh over the limit on Hwy7, somewhere around Madoc, challenged it under the Charter.
I can't remember the specifics, because it was so long ago, but they did win. The woman had pulled out to pass a transport truck and the transport accelerated, in order to block her from passing. There was oncoming traffic so she had to speed up significantly to get around the truck, which was when OPP clocked her.
:format(webp)/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/ontario/2009/09/10/stuntdriving_grandma_gets_reprieve_from_judge/stuntdriving_woman_getsreprieve.jpeg)
Historically the HTA can be applied on private property, to which the public has free access. Mall parking lots and their connecting roads, for example, even if they are on completely private property.
I'll have to do some digging. It was something that I read in one of the statutes, some time back, that specifically referenced public access.
I have a similar recollection but no easy reference. Something along the lines of if you stretch a chain across the driveway to prevent public access you are HTA exempt but if the public has access, the HTA could be applied (although it rarely was).
I definitely have something similar rattling around the back of my brain. it keyed on freely available public access.
So much makes me see red.I can't remember the specifics, because it was so long ago, but they did win. The woman had pulled out to pass a transport truck and the transport accelerated, in order to block her from passing. There was oncoming traffic so she had to speed up significantly to get around the truck, which was when OPP clocked her.
*EDIT* Found it. On appeal it ended up changing how the stunt driving charge is applied. It was originally an "absolute liability offence" which means if you did it, you're guilty. Circumstances are irrelevant. It's now applied as a "strict liability offence" which means that if you did it, you're guilty, but you can use the defence that you used "all reasonable care" in the situation and had no recourse, as a defence.
'Stunt-driving' grandma gets reprieve from judge
Jane Raham admits she panicked when she pushed on the accelerator to overtake the tractor-trailer.www.thestar.com
The chain is a fuzzy barrier. It may only keep some people out and it may not contain bits from exploding engines or fireballs of fuel. There are reasonable grounds to protect the public from a dangerous activity. That also gets fuzzy as just because it involves a motor vehicle it doesn't mean a HTA offense.
|
|
|
|
|