Is there really a difference, how do you become stuck in an intersection because a vehicle in front of you stopped? You clearly entered the intersection without enough room to clear it. You're intentionally interfering with cross-traffic.
@griff2, i'm looking for cases but the ones that are published are only showing police using S170(12) to stop drivers and from there, they discover much larger problems which lead to more serious charges/arrests.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm
“park” or “parking”, when prohibited, means the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except when standing temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers; (“stationnement”)
“stand” or “standing”, when prohibited, means the halting of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except for the purpose of and while actually engaged in receiving or discharging passengers; (“immobilisation”)
R. v. Bugaeva [1999] O.J. No. 2738
22 Defence counsel urges me to accept the accused's evidence that there was no traffic behind her car, and no horn honking. In support, he relies on the evidence of Rinaldo which he claims supports the evidence of the accused on this issue. I disagree with Counsel's interpretation of Rinaldo's evidence on this issue. At its highest, Rinaldo could not remember whether there was traffic behind the accused or horn honking. However, even if I accept counsel's submission, I find the request to see her licence is still validly triggered by s. 170(12) of the H.T.A., because the way she positioned her car would have interfered with traffic that might reasonably be expected. I interpret this section to include not only traffic that built up behind the accused, but also, any traffic that might reasonably be expected. If the defence theory prevailed, it would be acceptable for the accused to remain in the position she was in for as long as she wanted, perhaps even hours or days, until other traffic built up behind her. This theory defies common sense.
23 The police urged the accused to move her car on numerous occasions. When she refused to do so it was reasonable for them to believe she was interfering with traffic. In either case she was violating S. 170(12) of the H.T.A., and in furtherance of their investigation, the S. 33 right to request identification was triggered.
30 She chose to stop on her own. When she did she was not detained until she was arrested. The position she took on the roadway prevented cars behind her from passing. She was free to leave at any time but chose to remain while blocking traffic behind her [see H.T.A. s. 170(12)]. In the result, the right of the police to seek driver identification was triggered and the accused was obliged to comply.
33 The answers to all the questions raised in the issues as they relate to the H.T.A. charge are "Yes". In the result, I find the charge has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and there will be a conviction.
Justice Harris
I really want to put this to bed, because if it's not illegal to block an intersection; I might as well not give room to side-streets/parking lot entrances in heavy traffic. As long as I enter the intersection/junction on a green or first, I can legally block cross-traffic? Then I might as well exercise that god given right every single time and play the dumb card I got stuck.
EDIT:
Another HTA 170(12) on this board:
http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showthread.php?159888-Obstructing-traffic
