dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
886
share rss forum feed

jaberi

join:2010-08-13

1,137 B.C. drunk driving penalties to be refunded

At least 1,137 B.C. drivers who were penalized under B.C.'s tough impaired driving laws will be getting some of their money back, B.C.'s Deputy Superintendent of Motor Vehicles has confirmed.

»ca.news.yahoo.com/1-137-b-c-drun···280.html


jaberi

join:2010-08-13

bars will be busy once the drunks receive their refunds....time to celebrate...the cops might want to prepare, all hell could break loose and riots could erupt.



FiReSTaRT
Premium
join:2010-02-26
Canada
Reviews:
·Velcom

Looks like many of them were first-time offenders. It's pretty bad in Ontario, where, regardless of what the propaganda tells you, a single drink can get you over the new low limit. In any case at least in BC, they challenged a law that doesn't follow due process. In Ontario, we still have the street racing law where you get punished before getting your day in court.
--
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.
—George Bernard Shaw



CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON

said by FiReSTaRT:

Looks like many of them were first-time offenders. It's pretty bad in Ontario, where, regardless of what the propaganda tells you, a single drink can get you over the new low limit. In any case at least in BC, they challenged a law that doesn't follow due process. In Ontario, we still have the street racing law where you get punished before getting your day in court.

Meanwhile the real killer in Ontario, undivided highways, never get a mention. Wonder why that is? Perhaps because it costs the province money, rather then making the province money?


loosedobbs

join:2006-06-13
Toronto

said by CanadianRip:

said by FiReSTaRT:

Looks like many of them were first-time offenders. It's pretty bad in Ontario, where, regardless of what the propaganda tells you, a single drink can get you over the new low limit. In any case at least in BC, they challenged a law that doesn't follow due process. In Ontario, we still have the street racing law where you get punished before getting your day in court.

Meanwhile the real killer in Ontario, undivided highways, never get a mention. Wonder why that is? Perhaps because it costs the province money, rather then making the province money?

I used to do that but never had any accidents, even at 160Km/s.
I don't drink anymore but its time somebody challenge the Ontario laws. Even I feel its over the top...at least sometimes.

The drivers were caught during a three-week period in November 2011 just before the B.C. Supreme Court ruled parts of B.C.'s tough drunk driving rules were unconstitutional.



TLS2000
Crazy Canuck
Premium
join:2004-02-24
Mississauga, ON

1 recommendation

I'm impressed at your ability to travel 576,000km per hour.
--
Tom



loosedobbs

join:2006-06-13
Toronto

said by TLS2000:

I'm impressed at your ability to travel 576,000km per hour.

HaHa. Nice catch. I am not going to edit it.
But that was my speed when I was drunk right?


TLS2000
Crazy Canuck
Premium
join:2004-02-24
Mississauga, ON

Anyway, I agree we need to change our laws. I really don't like that people get punished without a trial. This applies to street racing and stunt driving laws mainly.
--
Tom



Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to CanadianRip

said by CanadianRip:

Meanwhile the real killer in Ontario, undivided highways, never get a mention. Wonder why that is? Perhaps because it costs the province money, rather then making the province money?

Most provincial highways in Ontario with an AADT above 10,000 (the threshold for twinning) are already multi-lane or in the process of becoming such. That, combined with statistics for the last 15 or so years showing Ontario's highways as the safest in North America, doesn't lend a lot of credibility to the argument about undivided highways being a problem in the province.

While one can harp on about speeding, drunk driving or whatever, the number of fatalities and injuries that occur on our roads today pales in comparison to 30-50 years ago. While it's one thing to strive to be better, it's another to beat a dead horse over impossible perfection.


capdjq
Premium
join:2000-11-01
Coastie
reply to jaberi

Another screw up that let's these bastards go free.



TLS2000
Crazy Canuck
Premium
join:2004-02-24
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed

said by capdjq:

Another screw up that let's these bastards go free.

You mean the screw up of not allowing due process?
--
Tom


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

For the record, we don't have "due process" in Canada. Instead we have fundamental justice.



TLS2000
Crazy Canuck
Premium
join:2004-02-24
Mississauga, ON

Very good sir, but the underlying principle is the same. It's unfair for the government to punish you without a day in court.
--
Tom



Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

While the general idea is the same, there are some significant differences. It becomes cloudy when judges can ignore cases where the police have blatantly violated Section 8 of the Charter because they believe the interest of the public in finding someone guilty outweighs their right of the accused to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. "Due Process" wouldn't allow something like that to happen. One should also remember that we have Section 1 of the Charter which could theoretically make anything fair game. Believing that our constitutional principals of justice and what goes on in the US are one in the same is what happens when someone watches too much American TV...

... but I digress...

If the Charter had some level of enshrined property rights, roadside vehicle seizures without some sort of judicial oversight would most likely be unconstitutional. As it stands now, they might be unconstitutional in BC. Or they might be constitutional like in Ontario. It all depends on how the judge interprets the Charter. I hope that this eventually makes it to the SCC so that we get an answer on this once and for all.



TLS2000
Crazy Canuck
Premium
join:2004-02-24
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed

And therein lies the problem. Our court systems see things differently so case law in BC doesn't apply to Ontario even when it's a constitutional issue. The government is very wary of allowing charter challenges to the street racing law to go up to the SCC because they know that it will be struck down. Even though people have had rulings in their favor, the government hasn't appealed them.
--
Tom



J E F F
Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Rogers Portable ..
reply to capdjq

said by capdjq:

Another screw up that let's these bastards go free.

Our system is screwed up no matter which way you slice it.
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to TLS2000

said by TLS2000:

And therein lies the problem. Our court systems see things differently so case law in BC doesn't apply to Ontario even when it's a constitutional issue. The government is very wary of allowing charter challenges to the street racing law to go up to the SCC because they know that it will be struck down. Even though people have had rulings in their favor, the government hasn't appealed them.

Actually, what happens in BC does apply to Ontario, once it has made it to a ruling at a provincial Court of Appeal.

A similar situation exists in the US with circuit courts.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2

said by Gone:

Actually, what happens in BC does apply to Ontario, once it has made it to a ruling at a provincial Court of Appeal.

...only if it relates to a law or regulation that is present in both jurisdictions, which highway traffic acts aren't. Each province has it's own.


capdjq
Premium
join:2000-11-01
Coastie

1 recommendation

reply to TLS2000

said by TLS2000:

said by capdjq:

Another screw up that let's these bastards go free.

You mean the screw up of not allowing due process?

When you have a sister who has been injured by a "drunk" driver, who then hires a $500/hour lawyer. The offending driver was freed on a paperwork technicality.

It irked me all through the trial process to see the smirk on that bastard's face, which then ballooned into a smile as he left the Courtroom.

All through the trial I was amazed at how the "offenders" rights were protected. The victim was an afterthought. Even the Prosecution wanted to settle quickly and get it over with.
--
I am a success today because I had a friend who believed in me and I didn't have the heart to let him down.



TLS2000
Crazy Canuck
Premium
join:2004-02-24
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed

1 recommendation

Oh please, stop pulling that what about the victim crap.

I've been injured by a drunk driver. It took years of court for the drunk to be convicted. In the end, it was my own insurance company that I had to sue for restitution because the drunk was uninsured.

That doesn't mean that people accused of an action shouldn't be given their day in court. It doesn't mean that when the police or crown screw up, that the person shouldn't get away with it. The whole idea of being "presumed innocent" in the charter is that the crown has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you committed the crime. If the crown can't do that legally, then there IS reasonable doubt and the charter REQUIRES and acquittal.

Yes it sucks when people get off on charges that they're guilty as sin for, but a drunk driving case should be VERY easy to prosecute unless the police or crown screw up. In those situations your beef is with them and not the accused.
--
Tom



capdjq
Premium
join:2000-11-01
Coastie

2 edits

My beef IS with the accused. I don't care about jail time as long as he's off the road not being a menace to anyone else. That's why I am happy with the instant suspensions. My sister's accuser had his license suspended over 15 times. I'm against even one drink and then driving.
You must be happy you got hit cause you got a pay off. There are similar types out there.



Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

We live in a country governed by the rule of law. The law applies equally to everyone. Just because you were hurt by someone during the commission of a crime does not mean that that person who wronged you is not entitled to the same legal rights and protections that you would receive under the same circumstances. While I can sympathize with the position you found itself in, all one can do is be blunt when they say that if you have a problem with that, tough shit.

No, having said all that, you can keep telling yourself your beef is with the accused all you want. It doesn't make it any more true and all you are doing is allowing yourself to feed your anger based on a lie. As had already been mentioned, impaired driving is pretty cut and dry as far as convicting someone, especially when an injury is involved. If the guy got off on a "paperwork technicality," - in other words, one of his legal rights was most likely violated in some form of another - your beef is with the Crown as they obviously did not do their due diligence to secure a conviction and instead they dropped the ball by failing to do their job.

This is the hard reality of life. It rains on the just and unjust. Lying to yourself won't make things any different, and won't change anything either.



dirtyjeffer
Anons on ignore, but not due to fear.
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON
reply to capdjq

there's a famous saying..."It's not what you did, it's what can be proven in a court of law".



TLS2000
Crazy Canuck
Premium
join:2004-02-24
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to capdjq

said by capdjq:

My beef IS with the accused. I don't care about jail time as long as he's off the road not being a menace to anyone else. That's why I am happy with the instant suspensions. My sister's accuser had his license suspended over 15 times. I'm against even one drink and then driving.
You must be happy you got hit cause you got a pay off. There are similar types out there.

Are you serious? When did I ever say I was happy about getting hit? Grow up man and don't put words into my mouth. The money won in the lawsuit didn't even cover lost time due to the injury. Stop trying to obfuscate the fact that you're pissed that the crown dropped the ball in that trial. I have no problem with a roadside suspension when there are charges, but to give police the power to issue a roadside suspension without even charging the person is idiotic and opens the system up to abuse. At least if there are charges being brought forward it WILL see the courts and the judge / jury can decide if the person was actually breaking the law.

I've been forced to do a breathalyzer before because the cop couldn't actually think of a good reason for why he pulled me over. He initially said I was street racing another car and backed down from that when I pointed out that if I was racing the other car I would have been winning. He then tried to imply that a bag of candy was drugs. After all of that he issued a breath demand despite the fact that I was showing ZERO signs of intoxication. He was fishing and my rights were violated. I blew ZERO, btw.

People like you seem to think that it's ok for the police to punish people on the spot despite the fact that our society and our constitution very clearly say that it is NOT acceptable for that to happen. I'm totally against drinking and driving, but that doesn't mean that I believe that ANYONE should be allowed to be punished without their day in court.

If you want to live in a society that believes in punishment without "fundamental justice" or due process, then go live in one of those societies, but don't be surprised when you realize that you have ZERO rights.
--
Tom


dirtyjeffer
Anons on ignore, but not due to fear.
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

said by TLS2000:

He initially said I was street racing another car and backed down from that when I pointed out that if I was racing the other car I would have been winning.

yea, because that will win you over with the cop.

be glad he didn't smack your tail lights out with his club and give you a ticket for being a smart ass that.
--
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

- George Orwell


TLS2000
Crazy Canuck
Premium
join:2004-02-24
Mississauga, ON

I wasn't trying to win him over. I was being an ass. I have a right to be an ass. That doesn't give him the right to perform an illegal search.
--
Tom



dirtyjeffer
Anons on ignore, but not due to fear.
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON

said by TLS2000:

I wasn't trying to win him over. I was being an ass. I have a right to be an ass. That doesn't give him the right to perform an illegal search.

i know, i'm just saying, if you go lookin for trouble, you're bound to find it.


TLS2000
Crazy Canuck
Premium
join:2004-02-24
Mississauga, ON

I didn't start it. lol
--
Tom



Styvas
Go Canucks Go
Premium
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON
reply to dirtyjeffer

said by dirtyjeffer:

said by TLS2000:

I wasn't trying to win him over. I was being an ass. I have a right to be an ass. That doesn't give him the right to perform an illegal search.

i know, i'm just saying, if you go lookin for trouble, you're bound to find it.

Sorry, Jeff, but it's these little abuses of power that lead to bigger ones. Not every cop, of course, but it starts somewhere. As a law abiding citizen, I'm disgusted by behaviour like that, as relatively insignificant is it is in the larger scheme of things. And I know, as you do, that it happens way more than it should.