'Open season on the public,' says critic as Alberta moves to eliminate traffic court

[scesfiremedic]

In a major overhaul in how driving violations are processed in Alberta, traffic court will be eliminated, tickets will be emailed and disputing those fines will cost up to $150, according to government documents.

And critics including a former police officer and defender of accused motorists are calling the move an “outrageous” run around due process.

The province is quietly implementing the changes that are to take effect Feb. 1 as part of an effort to streamline a backlogged court system and free up police resources by quickly moving two million traffic tickets through the system each year.

It also reduces the time motorists can decide to contest tickets from several weeks to seven days, and replaces traffic court with an adjudicator, with decisions rendered in 30 days in a process conducted online or over the phone.

A government document states “a few fines will be increased,” but the demerit system will remain unchanged and incidents that are “highly complex” and serious enough to involve bodily injury will be exempt.

What’s known as Phase 2 of the Justice Transformation Initiative (JTI) comes on the heels of changes made to impaired driving enforcement that on Dec. 1, 2020, removed cases from the court system while imposing significant immediate penalties, vehicle seizures and mandatory education.

The government said that’s proven successful in increasing justice system capacity by nearly 10 per cent while reducing the number of fatal collisions due to impairment.

Under the new regimen, accused motorists will be issued a roadside ticket with a QR code that will take them to an online portal to process their alleged violation or “contravention,” as the legislation states.

But critics say the new process, triggered by the 2020 passing of Bill 21 — the Provincial Administrative Penalties Act — ignores due process and deters citizens from fighting what they consider unfair fines.

“You no longer have the right to a trial, you’re guilty until proven innocent,” said Charlie Pester, a former police officer who operates POINTTS Calgary, which helps motorists fight traffic tickets.

“It’s a joke, police state stuff . . . it’s open season on the public. Is this what Albertans want?”

He noted the adjudicator, unlike the current system, can’t reduce fines or length of suspension.

The approach, which has been brewing since 2013 under PC, NDP and UCP governments, is a contravention of the Canadian Constitution, he said.

“The only thing that’s going to stop them is if the courts say it’s against the charter,” said Pester, adding the JTI effectively derails businesses such as his.

“The bottom line is, I’ll be shutting down shop. I’m done.”

Under JTI, those seeking a review of a ticket of $299 or less will pay a non-refundable fee of $50, while challenging a fine over $299 will cost $150.

Pester said he’s not surprised the provincial government hasn’t publicized the changes less than a month before their implementation.

“They’re using COVID as a cover — if the public knew, they’d be outraged,” he said.

A spokesperson for Alberta Transportation limited his comment on the changes.

“Alberta’s government has stated it will be expanding the SafeRoads program,” Rob Williams said in an email.

“That review is currently underway. We hope to make an announcement soon.”

But documents outlining the system are emphatic that it’s needed to address a backlogged court system, improve efficiency and reduce harm to the public, stating it’s expected to do just that.

“The JTI is focused on increasing capacity to the criminal court system, improving policing capacity across the province; improving public and traffic safety; and enhancing accessibility, efficiency and timeliness for all Albertans,” states one document.

Provincial documents say Phase 3 of SafeRoads Alberta will expand so “that it could be adapted for use by any regulated area of provincial jurisdiction that involves fines.”

A timeline for that will depend on how Phase 2 proceeds, it said.

Pester said that suggests what he calls an assault on civil liberties will go far beyond traffic enforcement.

“It’s not the end of it — they’re going to do every provincial offence and take away your rights to a fair trial,” he said.

A Calgary Police Service official said training on the new system should begin next week with implementation on Feb. 1.

The news comes about a month after the province said that beginning in April, municipalities will have to justify where they place photo radar traps to eliminate so-called “fishing holes”, and will be prevented from setting up in speed transition areas or those marked below 50 km/h except in construction and playground zones.

They’ll also require photo radar vehicles be made visible and that double ticketing of motorists within five minutes of the first one being issued be stopped.

But the Opposition NDP said those moves don’t go far enough, insisting the government should end the use of traffic cameras it calls cash cows.

Two years ago, CPS said photo enforcement revenue makes up around 70 per cent of police revenues annually, or approximately $40 million.

But in a report released in February 2019, a 170-page independent review of photo radar commissioned by the former NDP government found it earned municipalities $220 million in 2016-17, with marginal correlations to improved crash and fatal collision rates.

From article: https://calgarysun.com/news/local-news/province-to-e-ticket-speeders-drop-traffic-court-and-charge-fee-for-fine-challenges

[JULIUS]

All I can say is from reading this my interpretation is w&**^*%$# I can not believe what is happening to our once great province

[4extreme]

soon it will be cheaper to drive with no plate and take your chances.

[JDK71]

soon it will be cheaper to drive with no plate and take your chances.

100%

[The Cook]

All I can say is from reading this my interpretation is w&**^*%$# I can not believe what is happening to our once great province

Almost time to move to quebexico where the streets are lined with Alberta gold.

[Ken07AOVette]

soon it will be cheaper to drive with no plate and take your chances.

cheaper yet not to speed, and actually stop for red lights, stop signs lol.

but

but

but

:sHa_sarcasticlol:

[Dewey Cox]

cheaper yet not to speed, and actually stop for red lights, stop signs lol.

but

but

but

:sHa_sarcasticlol:

Which is why you shouldn't have to automatically pay a fine given to you in error.

[JohninAB]

cheaper yet not to speed, and actually stop for red lights, stop signs lol.

but

but

but

:sHa_sarcasticlol:

It is about the loss of due process not speeding, red light infractions or stop signs.

Remember when the traffic light cameras screwed up and people were getting tickets which were issued in error. Under the new system you have to pay to contest the ticket and not in a court of law but with an adjudicator. That is not due process as we were taught.

[elkhunter11]

Mistakes do get made by red light cameras and the people interpreting them, just as mistakes do get made by radar operators, especially photo radar. People should not have to pay to get justice when mistakes are made, and more importantly, we should not lose our right to a trial. Taking away our right to a trial is all about money, just as the fees to challenge the charges are, and we lose our rights, to save the government, who operates with our money, some cash. And as we lose our right to a trial, we move closer to becoming a police state.

[KegRiver]

People should not contest tickets the deserved.

I'd wager, from what I've seen in over 2 million miles of driving, at least 90% of tickets that are contested were deserved.

[Dynamic]

I'm torn on this.

One one hand it makes sense. At least for these low level driving offences. Just hearing stories at work of people fighting their traffic ticket that was 100% deserved even by their own admission, and getting it reduced seems like a total waste of resources. I've never fought a traffic ticket before so forgive my ignorance but is it true a police officer has to be in court if you are fighting it.? If so there is a literally a million better things a police officer can be doing than wasting a part of a day sitting in a court room arguing with Jim Bob about his $250 failure to yield ticket on his way to Canadian Tire.

The part I don't agree with is the non refundable fee. Why not make it refundable if you win the challenge? Like when in the NHL when you challenge a call on the ice you should not be penalized for the challenge if you win, only if you lose.

[pikergolf]

I worked with a guy that got 4 to 6 photo radar tickets a year. He took time off to contest every one. He would ask if the machine had been properly calibrated and then pay the fine. Just because he could. What a waste of tax payer money.

[Penner]

People should not contest tickets the deserved.

I'd wager, from what I've seen in over 2 million miles of driving, at least 90% of tickets that are contested were deserved.

90% I would suggest is being conservative.

[58thecat]

Drive accordingly to the road conditions defensively and we would not have issues.
This area has had three horrible accidents due to NOT driving accordingly but hey ask the dead what they think now!

Ohh yeah stop means stop until two that think it means roll on through or a yellow light means step on it ahhh eventually two meatheads meet and then it’s point fingers and lay blame.

50 in a a school zone and a camera picks this upon photo radar and yup got a problem not going to court:snapoutofit:

Cut cost and nail the guilty or have a cop nock on your window asking for licence and registration and your butt hurt....dam butt hurt people need to accept responsibilities for their actions.....period.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[58thecat]

People should not contest tickets the deserved.

I'd wager, from what I've seen in over 2 million miles of driving, at least 90% of tickets that are contested were deserved.

Exactly...guilty of all tickets I have been issued.

[elkhunter11]

I'm torn on this.

One one hand it makes sense. At least for these low level driving offences. Just hearing stories at work of people fighting their traffic ticket that was 100% deserved even by their own admission, and getting it reduced seems like a total waste of resources. I've never fought a traffic ticket before so forgive my ignorance but is it true a police officer has to be in court if you are fighting it.? If so there is a literally a million better things a police officer can be doing than wasting a part of a day sitting in a court room arguing with Jim Bob about his $250 failure to yield ticket on his way to Canadian Tire.

The part I don't agree with is the non refundable fee. Why not make it refundable if you win the challenge? Like when in the NHL when you challenge a call on the ice you should not be penalized for the challenge if you win, only if you lose.

The non refundable fee to review a ticket, is just another way to increase revenue. Now whether you are guilty or innocent, as long as you are accused you pay. People who are found not guilty, should not pay. How can anyone justify the fee not being refunded, if the review finds that a mistake was made, and that you are not guilty?

[Ken07AOVette]

Which is why you shouldn't have to automatically pay a fine given to you in error.

I agree completely.

Have you ever gotten a ticket in error?

I have not. And before anyone starts throwing numbers, I drove 4000km a week for a decade in my own vehicle without a single ticket, also have not had a ticket since 1997 which was 10kph over in Jasper at 2am.

It is about the loss of due process not speeding, red light infractions or stop signs.

Remember when the traffic light cameras screwed up and people were getting tickets which were issued in error. Under the new system you have to pay to contest the ticket and not in a court of law but with an adjudicator. That is not due process as we were taught.

Agreed. We have to hope that when they find it is an error the process will be reversed.

[Dynamic]

The non refundable fee to review a ticket, is just another way to increase revenue. Now whether you are guilty or innocent, as long as you are accused you pay. People who are found not guilty, should not pay. How can anyone justify the fee not being refunded, if the review finds that a mistake was made, and that you are not guilty?

I agree 100%, that is what I am saying. I don't agree with the non-refundable part of it. IMO if you fight the ticket and win you get the fee is refundable and you don't pay the ticket. If you lose your case you pay the ticket and the fee becomes non refundable. I don't see it as a way to increase revenue but more a way to deter people from fighting traffic tickets that are deserved.

[Whipper Billy]

His concerns with Bill 21 Provincial Administrative Penalties Act and the 3 Phase implementation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXHF_fULvwA

[Ken07AOVette]

soon it will be cheaper to drive with no plate and take your chances.

Learn this phrase;

'It must have been stolen at the wal-mart' :sHa_sarcasticlol:

[Chuck_Wagon]

The news comes about a month after the province said that beginning in April, municipalities will have to justify where they place photo radar traps to eliminate so-called “fishing holes”, and will be prevented from setting up in speed transition areas or those marked below 50 km/h except in construction and playground zones.

They’ll also require photo radar vehicles be made visible and that double ticketing of motorists within five minutes of the first one being issued be stopped.
This is a positive thing by the Prov. Gov.


But the Opposition NDP said those moves don’t go far enough, insisting the government should end the use of traffic cameras it calls cash cows.
This comment by the NDP is laughable. They know full well the Provincial Gov. does not use or allow photo radar cameras on the Hwy network and would have a huge fight on their hands to try and stop municipal Gov. from using photo radar in cities, etc.
It’s deceitful of them to make it appear its a Prov. Gov. issue.

[6.5 shooter]

Chip, chip, chip as your rights are slowly chipped away. Amazing how many frogs are willing to sit in the water.

Just like they will never come for MY guns. LOL :snapoutofit:

[Ken07AOVette]

Drive accordingly to the road conditions defensively and we would not have issues.
This area has had three horrible accidents due to NOT driving accordingly but hey ask the dead what they think now!

Ohh yeah stop means stop until two that think it means roll on through or a yellow light means step on it ahhh eventually two meatheads meet and then it’s point fingers and lay blame.

50 in a a school zone and a camera picks this upon photo radar and yup got a problem not going to court:snapoutofit:

Cut cost and nail the guilty or have a cop nock on your window asking for licence and registration and your butt hurt....dam butt hurt people need to accept responsibilities for their actions.....period.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The last calls to 911 for road help around here resulted in fatalities. People don't learn.

[elkhunter11]

I agree 100%, that is what I am saying. I don't agree with the non-refundable part of it. IMO if you fight the ticket and win you get the fee is refundable and you don't pay the ticket. If you lose your case you pay the ticket and the fee becomes non refundable. I don't see it as a way to increase revenue but more a way to deter people from fighting traffic tickets that are deserved.

The fact that the fee is non refundable, will deter some innocent people from contesting a ticket, because even if found not guilty, they still pay. If they have to pay anyways, some people will just accept a wrongful ticket , and not challenge it. And what does the review consist of? If it's a quick glance at the paperwork, and they collect the fee, they make good money for the minutes it would take.

[sewerrat]

https://globalnews.ca/news/8494169/alberta-traffic-courts-changes-justice-access/

So what you guys think?
It does help out the police officers a lot by freeing them up for more urgent things.
Quite often they go to court, and the offender is a no show, so the cop just wasted a whole day waiting in court.
Now you can appeal your ticket in 7 days for a fee.

I guess they have been doing this in BC and other provinces for some time now.

[Phil McCracken]

Simple...don't break the law...:)

[elkhunter11]

Simple...don't break the law...:)

So are you saying that mistakes never happen, that every person that is issued a ticket is guilty? We should always have the right to a trial, because both people and equipment, are not perfect, and the idea of a non refundable fee to have someone review a ticket is asinine. No matter what system is used, a person that is found not guilty should not be charged a non refundable fee.

[tirebob]

So are you saying that mistakes never happen, that every person that is issued a ticket is guilty? We should always have the right to a trial, because both people and equipment, are not perfect, and the idea of a non refundable fee to have someone review a ticket is asinine. No matter what system is used, a person that is found not guilty should not be charged a non refundable fee.

Yep... I had to fight a ticket a couple years back now that I was 100% not guilty of doing anything even remotely illegal. I already had to take a day off of work to go to court and they took one look at it, looked at the evidence I put forth and immediately said I did nothing wrong and quashed it. I was even told by the JP that the officer who wrote that ticket is famous for "throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks" and that if he wrote that ticket to 10 people, 9 would never show to fight it so in the end he doesn't care.

This is not a good thing... I am shocked anyone would think it was. There are better ways to do what the intent of this new law is I would think.

[Phil McCracken]

So are you saying that mistakes never happen, that every person that is issued a ticket is guilty? We should always have the right to a trial, because both people and equipment, are not perfect, and the idea of a non refundable fee to have someone review a ticket is asinine. No matter what system is used, a person that is found not guilty should not be charged a non refundable fee.

No, I said simply do not break the law.

And as usual, thank you for your input...:)

[splake0]

Just another Kenny Government ****** up. Seems whatever he does it is the wrong thing to do.

[elkhunter11]

Yep... I had to fight a ticket a couple years back now that I was 100% not guilty of doing anything even remotely illegal. I already had to take a day off of work to go to court and they took one look at it, looked at the evidence I put forth and immediately said I did nothing wrong and quashed it. I was even told by the JP that the officer who wrote that ticket is famous for "throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks" and that if he wrote that ticket to 10 people, 9 would never show to fight it so in the end he doesn't care.

This is not a good thing... I am shocked anyone would think it was. There are better ways to do what the intent of this new law is I would think.

And with the new system, you would have to pay a non refundable fee as well, so even if found not guilty, you still pay a financial penalty. I can't understand anyone supporting an innocent person paying a non refundable fee, that penalizes anyone for simply being accused.

No, I said simply do not break the law.

So do you support the fee not being refundable, if the ticket is found to be a mistake?

[Phil McCracken]

So are you saying that mistakes never happen, that every person that is issued a ticket is guilty? We should always have the right to a trial, because both people and equipment, are not perfect, and the idea of a non refundable fee to have someone review a ticket is asinine. No matter what system is used, a person that is found not guilty should not be charged a non refundable fee.

I agree with that...:)

[Vingiu]

We already pay taxes for a functional justice system. Well, that’s the idea anyways.

The way I see it - if the volume of infractions being ticketed - and their subsequent court challenges, which is our right, are overwhelming the court system, there is a fundamental issue with the way the law is being enforced.

The government can’t have it’s cake and eat it too. Due process can’t be blockaded just because there are some scummy lawyers who clog up the court system.

And it’s not so simple as “don’t break the law”. Myself and many others have been incorrectly ticketed as it is, when we had “free” access to court challenges - now there’s another barrier to proving our innocence, when one of our fine blue-liners has a bad day? Nah.

[bat119]

Some fight tickets even though they know they are guilty on the slim chance it might get quashed by a technicality, the cost to the court often exceeds the fine.

They should refund the deposit if the ticket gets thrown out

[elkhunter11]

Some fight tickets even though they know they are guilty on the slim chance it might get quashed by a technicality, the cost to the court often exceeds the fine.

They should refund the deposit if the ticket gets thrown out

How about refund double the fee if not guilty, to encourage those issuing tickets to be more careful? :thinking-006:

[JohninAB]

Just another Kenny Government ****** up. Seems whatever he does it is the wrong thing to do.

From what has been reported, these changes were put in motion by the earlier PC governments then further aligned by the NDP to now where the changes are being implemented.

I disagree with the loss of due process as it is now.

[Vingiu]

How about refund double the fee if not guilty, to encourage those issuing tickets to be more careful? :thinking-006:


Honestly I’d like to see crooked (or willfully ignorant) LEOs being held personally responsible

Compensation for my day off work, refunded fee… all out of their pension. Some of these guys wouldn’t have a pension by the time they hit 65

There needs to be consequences for ignorant law enforcement

[elkhunter11]

Honestly I’d like to see crooked (or willfully ignorant) LEOs being held personally responsible

Compensation for my day off work, refunded fee… all out of their pension. Some of these guys wouldn’t have a pension by the time they hit 65

There needs to be consequences for ignorant law enforcement

Unfortunately, that will never happen, but it would be fair to compensate someone for being wrongfully accused.

[58thecat]

So are you saying that mistakes never happen, that every person that is issued a ticket is guilty? We should always have the right to a trial, because both people and equipment, are not perfect, and the idea of a non refundable fee to have someone review a ticket is asinine. No matter what system is used, a person that is found not guilty should not be charged a non refundable fee.

You pay the fee for the so called trial if the ticket is tossed you get refunded anything else is just like you said asinine....I have a few choice words but for this system to be in place but I got a feeling after much push back there will be a revision.

[58thecat]

Honestly I’d like to see crooked (or willfully ignorant) LEOs being held personally responsible

Compensation for my day off work, refunded fee… all out of their pension. Some of these guys wouldn’t have a pension by the time they hit 65

There needs to be consequences for ignorant law enforcement

Ohhh that didn’t take long to turn this into another LEO bashing thread...what a small bunch here eh!

The thread is about a system that seems wonky and we know it is NOT the LEO’s out there day in day out keeping things in line...

[Donkey Oatey]

Honestly I’d like to see crooked (or willfully ignorant) LEOs being held personally responsible

Compensation for my day off work, refunded fee… all out of their pension. Some of these guys wouldn’t have a pension by the time they hit 65

There needs to be consequences for ignorant law enforcement

Unfortunately, that will never happen, but it would be fair to compensate someone for being wrongfully accused.

Just like usual, didn't take long for a post about the UCP/GoA and courts turn to a cop bashing thread by the usual cast of characters.

Back on topic. I am of two minds to this. I can see how this will cut down on the pressures felt by the courts. Will do away with the plead not guilty just to find out if the officer will show up or the trying to plead down the charge/fine/points.

On the other hand I disagree with the fundamental removal of due process as guaranteed by the Charter.

I like the idea of a $50 fee for file not guilty, and if found guilty you forfeit your $50 and the fine. Not guilty get your $50 back. If you are innocent, truly innocent or the officer made a grievous error it's pretty easy to get your $50 back and removes the shoot for the stars defense.

[Vingiu]

Ohhh that didn’t take long to turn this into another LEO bashing thread...what a small bunch here eh!

The thread is about a system that seems wonky and we know it is NOT the LEO’s out there day in day out keeping things in line...

I wouldn't say I'm bashing LEOs... but we must be able to recognize they play a part in this. They are the ones issuing the tickets, after all. You absolutely cannot convince any level-headed human being that they do not contribute to the court-clogging problems.

[Vingiu]

Just like usual, didn't take long for a post about the UCP/GoA and courts turn to a cop bashing thread by the usual cast of characters.

Back on topic. I am of two minds to this. I can see how this will cut down on the pressures felt by the courts. Will do away with the plead not guilty just to find out if the officer will show up or the trying to plead down the charge/fine/points.

On the other hand I disagree with the fundamental removal of due process as guaranteed by the Charter.

I like the idea of a $50 fee for file not guilty, and if found guilty you forfeit your $50 and the fine. Not guilty get your $50 back. If you are innocent, truly innocent or the officer made a grievous error it's pretty easy to get your $50 back and removes the shoot for the stars defense.

Funny how you bootlickers cry "don't bring cops into this!" when they are clearly a part of the issue. They are a piece of the puzzle, like it or not.

[58thecat]

I wouldn't say I'm bashing LEOs... but we must be able to recognize they play a part in this. They are the ones issuing the tickets, after all. You absolutely cannot convince any level-headed human being that they do not contribute to the court-clogging problems.

BS the court clogging is 99% of people who break the law and are guilty, the 1% or less were/are innocent and are having their say in court and rightfully so.

Now back to the thread please.

[Donkey Oatey]

Funny how you bootlickers cry "don't bring cops into this!" when they are clearly a part of the issue. They are a piece of the puzzle, like it or not.

It's a red herring distraction from the topic at hand. Just another way to bash cops on a thread that has NOTHING to do with police.

Like it or not.

Instead of bashing cops, come up with a fix for the court system. Or are you just an sideline, yell at the TV kind of person? Blame everyone else but yourself for your failures and can't take ownership of your own actions?

It's not the police that are clogging the courts.

In the immortal words of Jim Carrey in Liar Liar. "Quit breaking the law A#@hole!"

[58thecat]

[QUOTE=Vingiu;4467386]Funny how you bootlickers cry "don't bring cops into this!" when they are clearly a part of the issue. They are a piece of the puzzle, like it or not.[/QUOTE

[Vingiu]

BS the court clogging is 99% of people who break the law and are guilty, the 1% or less were/are innocent and are having their say in court and rightfully so.

Now back to the thread please.

This is part of the thread and the topic at hand. Dissecting the root causes of the court case glut.

Show me your stats please. I don't see "LEO error" in your percentages. But I assure you, it is there, and in a number higher than 0%.

[Vingiu]

It's a red herring distraction from the topic at hand. Just another way to bash cops on a thread that has NOTHING to do with police.

Like it or not.

Instead of bashing cops, come up with a fix for the court system. Or are you just an sideline, yell at the TV kind of person? Blame everyone else but yourself for your failures and can't take ownership of your own actions?

It's not the police that are clogging the courts.

In the immortal words of Jim Carrey in Liar Liar. "Quit breaking the law A#@hole!"

I'm giving my perspective, what I believe is a substantial contributing factor to the overcrowded courts. I believe part of the "solution" if there were one, would incorporate some deterrent for unethical policing.

The police are an integral part of the justice system, no?

[splake0]

So why not get rid of all courts. Let the police be judge and jury. Seems that your guilty if the police thinks so according to some posts on this thread. There are many many good cops but there are also vengeful ones aswell

[Vingiu]

So why not get rid of all courts. Let the police be judge and jury. Seems that your guilty if the police thinks so according to some posts on this thread. There are many many good cops but there are also vengeful ones aswell

Agreed.

If they are infallible... let's just do away with court altogether, that's sure to cut costs.

[Donkey Oatey]

I'm giving my perspective, what I believe is a substantial contributing factor to the overcrowded courts. I believe part of the "solution" if there were one, would incorporate some deterrent for unethical policing.

The police are an integral part of the justice system, no?

The topic at hand is the UCP/GoA removing a right that is guaranteed by the Charter to a trial. Why they are doing it and is it right.

Again, nothing to do with police.

BTW every single person that I have ever met that talks about bad cops/bad cop encounters and that there is wide spread corruption in police are ones that bring it on themselves and can't take responsibility for their own actions.

Again I will post i have two minds on the subject. I can see what they are trying to accomplish and don't completely disagree on it. I don't think they are going about it 100% correctly and I fundamentally disagree with the erosion of a fundamental right to trial.

I agree that something has to be done to unclog the courts and free up officers and courts for the more important work.

But keep beating off on that bad cop drum.

[Vingiu]

The topic at hand is the UCP/GoA removing a right that is guaranteed by the Charter to a trial. Why they are doing it and is it right.

Again, nothing to do with police.

BTW every single person that I have ever met that talks about bad cops/bad cop encounters and that there is wide spread corruption in police are ones that bring it on themselves and can't take responsibility for their own actions.

Again I will post i have two minds on the subject. I can see what they are trying to accomplish and don't completely disagree on it. I don't think they are going about it 100% correctly and I fundamentally disagree with the erosion of a fundamental right to trial.

I agree that something has to be done to unclog the courts and free up officers and courts for the more important work.

But keep beating off on that bad cop drum.

1. Law
2. Law enforcement
3. Accused

These are the components to the issue at hand... overcrowded courts. Look at where the case load is coming from, that's all I'm saying. They come from 1 place - law enforcement. If it is "cop bashing" to recognize that fact, and believe there is work to do on that end of the issue, I have nothing to say to you. Good day

[elkhunter11]

Just like usual, didn't take long for a post about the UCP/GoA and courts turn to a cop bashing thread by the usual cast of characters.

Back on topic. I am of two minds to this. I can see how this will cut down on the pressures felt by the courts. Will do away with the plead not guilty just to find out if the officer will show up or the trying to plead down the charge/fine/points.

On the other hand I disagree with the fundamental removal of due process as guaranteed by the Charter.

I like the idea of a $50 fee for file not guilty, and if found guilty you forfeit your $50 and the fine. Not guilty get your $50 back. If you are innocent, truly innocent or the officer made a grievous error it's pretty easy to get your $50 back and removes the shoot for the stars defense.

This is not about bashing the police, it's about the new legislation, and how flawed it is. But the police issue some of the tickets, so yes, they do play a part. But the police do not issue all of the tickets, some are photo radar,and some are red light cameras, and those also result in tickets that should never be issued. Looking at the pictures, there are sometimes multiple vehicles in the picture, so a ticket should not be issued, yet they sometimes are issued, because the person reviewing them wasn't careful enough. Now the person wrongfully accused because the person reviewing the pictures made a mistake has to pay a non refundable fee, which is totally asinine. If you are innocent you should not be punished with a non refundable fee, no reasonable person would think that an innocent person should pay for being wrongly accused.

[leeelmer]

I have had a ticket given to me in error, a county cop, parked 2 miles away. Looking threw his bino's said I did a rolling stop at a uncontrolled railway crossing.
I did a full stop(that time) because I was staring at a beautiful 5x5 whitetail buck walking across the tracks about 50 yards to the west.
Started driving again, county cop pulled me over, and said I didn't come to a full stop. I told him I did and he laughed and gave me a $375 ticket and it came with a bunch of demerits.
So I took the day off work, went to traffic court, seen the crown prosecutor in his little office beside the court room. Showed him a map, with where the crossing was, and where the county rent a cop was parked. He made a quick phone call to the rent a cop. Asked some questions, and hung up.
He voided the ticket, he also mentioned that it was completely wrong for the county cop to try that crap. I have a class 1 licence, and there was no way I was going to have a ticket that I did not deserve on my abstract.
So with the new laws, I would have to pay to fight that ticket, I already have to pay to fight a ticket, take the day off work, and drive to the court house.
So now you pay, and talk to a adjudicator.
Well I guess it would be close to the same, as I have never actually stood in front of a judge, only ever talked to the crown prosecutor. This I have done for work as the RCMP has ticketed my guys at work lots for no licence plate on our rental equipment(think light towers and air compressors) In Alberta you don't need a licence plate, but in lots of other provinces you do. And the RCMP don't seam to know that. I have done this 10+ times, so with the new law, I guess it would cost me, but its just a phone call, no driving all over the provence to fight it. But this happens lots, I even have printed off the part of the traffic code, highlighted the section that applies and put it in all the glove boxes in our work trucks, but we still have recieved tickets.

[C2C3PO]

I have had a ticket given to me in error, a county cop, parked 2 miles away. Looking threw his bino's said I did a rolling stop at a uncontrolled railway crossing.
I did a full stop(that time) because I was staring at a beautiful 5x5 whitetail buck walking across the tracks about 50 yards to the west.
Started driving again, county cop pulled me over, and said I didn't come to a full stop. I told him I did and he laughed and gave me a $375 ticket and it came with a bunch of demerits.
So I took the day off work, went to traffic court, seen the crown prosecutor in his little office beside the court room. Showed him a map, with where the crossing was, and where the county rent a cop was parked. He made a quick phone call to the rent a cop. Asked some questions, and hung up.
He voided the ticket, he also mentioned that it was completely wrong for the county cop to try that crap. I have a class 1 licence, and there was no way I was going to have a ticket that I did not deserve on my abstract.
So with the new laws, I would have to pay to fight that ticket, I already have to pay to fight a ticket, take the day off work, and drive to the court house.
So now you pay, and talk to a adjudicator.
Well I guess it would be close to the same, as I have never actually stood in front of a judge, only ever talked to the crown prosecutor. This I have done for work as the RCMP has ticketed my guys at work lots for no licence plate on our rental equipment(think light towers and air compressors) In Alberta you don't need a licence plate, but in lots of other provinces you do. And the RCMP don't seam to know that. I have done this 10+ times, so with the new law, I guess it would cost me, but its just a phone call, no driving all over the provence to fight it. But this happens lots, I even have printed off the part of the traffic code, highlighted the section that applies and put it in all the glove boxes in our work trucks, but we still have recieved tickets.


Some excellent, real life examples of why the current system should not be changed to remove one's access to the court system. Court is intimidating enough for the average person to be able to successfully navigate without added hurdles of non-refundable processing fees, etc.
Police officers DO MAKE MISTAKES.
When they do the public has a right to contest the issue in court without being labelled as "clogging the system up".
One of the biggest reasons for the backlog is, quite frankly, all the people who are issued tickets and either plead not guilty ( often time with adjournments or postponements) with the single intent of running the clock out so as to give them extra time for demerits to show up (or be removed from their abstracts), and those who purposely do it out of spite feeling it is perfectly within their right to do so.
When these people are added to the court docket and don't show up on their "day in court" at least 90 minutes (morning and afternoon) are wasted going through the list and declaring them guilty in absentia.

[albertadave]

We already pay taxes for a functional justice system. Well, that’s the idea anyways.

The way I see it - if the volume of infractions being ticketed - and their subsequent court challenges, which is our right, are overwhelming the court system, there is a fundamental issue with the way the law is being enforced.

The government can’t have it’s cake and eat it too. Due process can’t be blockaded just because there are some scummy lawyers who clog up the court system.

And it’s not so simple as “don’t break the law”. Myself and many others have been incorrectly ticketed as it is, when we had “free” access to court challenges - now there’s another barrier to proving our innocence, when one of our fine blue-liners has a bad day? Nah.

This ^^^ post X1000

I'm surprised that so many sheep on AO are willing to accept this. Or even welcoming it. To those saying "just don't break the law" and "just don't speed", are you familiar with the concept of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty"? Look it up.

[6.5 shooter]

The normal DON"T break the LAW crowd and the cops can do no WRONG crowd are busy telling you that your rights and freedoms are no worth your day in court. How sad that some feel that a system run by humans needs no checks and balances ... Shameful

[CDNOutdoorsman]

This ^^^ post X1000

I'm surprised that so many sheep on AO are willing to accept this. Or even welcoming it. To those saying "just don't break the law" and "just don't speed", are you familiar with the concept of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty"? Look it up.

AMEN to this comment. Why are we not innocent until PROVEN guilty anymore?

[CNP]

Another reason I'm glad I don't live in the cities, where most of the problem drivers are........flame away lol

This is all about the money. The prov is broke, cities are broke, paying 6 figure police officers to sit around in traffic court defending their tickets is something that should be visited.......and they have done exactly that.

The OP appears to be an article written by an ex copper who is now hustling business from people to fight their tickets in court. Guilty or innocent doesn't matter, it's going to effect his revenue stream lol.

To me..................another tempest in a teapot :)

[tri777]

Yep... I had to fight a ticket a couple years back now that I was 100% not guilty of doing anything
even remotely illegal. I already had to take a day off of work to go to court and they took one look at
it, looked at the evidence I put forth and immediately said I did nothing wrong and quashed it. I was even
told by the JP that the officer who wrote that ticket is famous for "throwing crap at the wall to see what
sticks" and that if he wrote that ticket to 10 people, 9 would never show to fight it so in the end he
doesn't care.

This is not a good thing... I am shocked anyone would think it was. There are better ways to
do what the intent of this new law is I would think.



Some excellent, real life examples of why the current system should not be changed to remove one's
access to the court system. Court is intimidating enough for the average person to be able to successfully
navigate without added hurdles of non-refundable processing fees, etc.
Police officers DO MAKE MISTAKES.
When they do the public has a right to contest the issue in court without being labelled as "clogging the system
up". One of the biggest reasons for the backlog is, quite frankly, all the people who are issued tickets and
either plead not guilty ( often time with adjournments or postponements) with the single intent of running
the clock out so as to give them extra time for demerits to show up (or be removed from their abstracts),
and those who purposely do it out of spite feeling it is perfectly within their right to do so.
When these people are added to the court docket and don't show up on their "day in court" at least
90 mins (morning and afternoon) are wasted going through the list and declaring them guilty in absentia.

The 2 posts that perfectly sum up entire thread for me.

[Ken07AOVette]

This ^^^ post X1000

I'm surprised that so many sheep on AO are willing to accept this. Or even welcoming it. To those saying "just don't break the law" and "just don't speed", are you familiar with the concept of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty"? Look it up.

the real problem is the donkeys on AO are constantly and blatantly breaking laws they do not agree with, then going to a ticket fighter to get it dismissed or lowered because they can spend money.

If we are calling names, look in the mirror first.

I dont see anyone welcoming it either, everyone agrees it is flawed but it is here.

Also- if a Sworn Officer writes a ticket in Court the onus is on you to prove they are wrong.

Buy a dash camera, front and rear facing with GPS and a real big SD card and the troubles go away.

[Knotter]

From a game theory perspective the LEO has a $150 blind posted on every ticket. Knowing this they can freely issue tickets unfounded or not and bank on individuals not pursuing them. This is a serious flaw in the design. Access to due process is regressive - meaning it hits the low income individual harder. Whoever came up with this idea is an idiot. I don't know what so say about those who support it.

To all of you who say don't break the law... wait 'til you get a ticket and believe you're in the right. You have to fork over $150 that is rightfully yours to contest the ticket. Lose lose to win. A right to due process is the price of admission in any functioning democracy. When a LEO pulls up behind my vehicle, they are there to enforce the law, not to pursue economic opportunities... unless they are in Mexico.

[gunluvr]

I agree 100%, that is what I am saying. I don't agree with the non-refundable part of it. IMO if you fight the ticket and win you get the fee is refundable and you don't pay the ticket. If you lose your case you pay the ticket and the fee becomes non refundable. I don't see it as a way to increase revenue but more a way to deter people from fighting traffic tickets that are deserved.

I agree and I'll add that if you lose, either your fee or your fine should double. Even more deterent.
(In the NFL, if the coach's challenge is shot down, his team loses a time- out.)
But the fee not being refunded if you win is just Nazi.

[JDK71]

From a game theory perspective the LEO has a $150 blind posted on every ticket. Knowing this they can freely issue tickets unfounded or not and bank on individuals not pursuing them. This is a serious flaw in the design. Access to due process is regressive - meaning it hits the low income individual harder. Whoever came up with this idea is an idiot. I don't know what so say about those who support it.

To all of you who say don't break the law... wait 'til you get a ticket and believe you're in the right. You have to fork over $150 that is rightfully yours to contest the ticket. Lose lose to win. A right to due process is the price of admission in any functioning democracy. When a LEO pulls up behind my vehicle, they are there to enforce the law, not to pursue economic opportunities... unless they are in Mexico.

Great post

[elkhunter11]

the real problem is the donkeys on AO are constantly and blatantly breaking laws they do not agree with, then going to a ticket fighter to get it dismissed or lowered because they can spend money.

If we are calling names, look in the mirror first.

I dont see anyone welcoming it either, everyone agrees it is flawed but it is here.

Also- if a Sworn Officer writes a ticket in Court the onus is on you to prove they are wrong.

Buy a dash camera, front and rear facing with GPS and a real big SD card and the troubles go away.

While a Dash camera can help to prove that you are innocent, exactly how does it prevent you being issued a wrongful ticket? You are still going to have to pay the fee to contest the ticket, if the guy beside you triggers the intersection camera, and is next to you when the picture is taken or when the guy next to you triggers the photo radar, as he passes you. And even if an officer issues the ticket, many are not going to be the slight bit interested in watching your dash cam footage when they pull you over, just because you are Ken .

[elkhunter11]

I agree and I'll add that if you lose, either your fee or your fine should double. Even more deterent.
(In the NFL, if the coach's challenge is shot down, his team loses a time- out.)
But the fee not being refunded if you win is just Nazi.

Using that ideology, if you win , you should be refunded double the fee, as a deterrent to false tickets being issued. The bottom line is that the non refundable fee just guarantees that you pay , so in effect, you lose,
whether you are innocent or guilty.

[Mulehahn]

I wonder where people get their stats from? If it's personal opinion or experience then I can honestly say that the police are in error 25% of the time. I have recieved 4 tickets in my life, over 25 years of driving. 3 for speeding and I paid them all, though one chaffed me good as it was for going 112 in a 100 zone back in BC two days before they upped the speed limit to 110.

But the forth ticket was for running a red light. This was completely not true and even worse the cop a kilometers away when it supposedly happened. Long story short, I got t-boned crossing an intersection. A few minutes later the police show up and the guy who hit me just starts losing it. Going off the deep end, screaming that i ran the red light. Based on his word alone I was given a hefty ticket, as far as I can tell simply to avoid a confrontation the system is messed. The only thing is there was a patio restaurant on the corner and I guess this guy was flying fast enough to draw their attention, if his speed didn't the sound of him locking up his brakes made them look and I ended up with 5 witnesses saying he was the one who didn't (couldn't) stop and ran the red light. I got all their statements and had the ticket dismissed. He did come to court but when I said that he did not witness the incident he agreed, and when I provided the witness statements the ticket was dismissed.

So yes, police do make mistakes. 25% of the time according to a sample size of 1. When cops are accusing people of a crime, and especially when they are accusing people of a crime based solely on the word of others and not something they personally witnessed, they should be made to stand in front of a judge and explain their actions and the accused must be able to make them do so with the least hindrance as possible.

[58thecat]

I wonder where people get their stats from? If it's personal opinion or experience then I can honestly say that the police are in error 25% of the time. I have recieved 4 tickets in my life, over 25 years of driving. 3 for speeding and I paid them all, though one chaffed me good as it was for going 112 in a 100 zone back in BC two days before they upped the speed limit to 110.

But the forth ticket was for running a red light. This was completely not true and even worse the cop a kilometers away when it supposedly happened. Long story short, I got t-boned crossing an intersection. A few minutes later the police show up and the guy who hit me just starts losing it. Going off the deep end, screaming that i ran the red light. Based on his word alone I was given a hefty ticket, as far as I can tell simply to avoid a confrontation the system is messed. The only thing is there was a patio restaurant on the corner and I guess this guy was flying fast enough to draw their attention, if his speed didn't the sound of him locking up his brakes made them look and I ended up with 5 witnesses saying he was the one who didn't (couldn't) stop and ran the red light. I got all their statements and had the ticket dismissed. He did come to court but when I said that he did not witness the incident he agreed, and when I provided the witness statements the ticket was dismissed.

So yes, police do make mistakes. 25% of the time according to a sample size of 1. When cops are accusing people of a crime, and especially when they are accusing people of a crime based solely on the word of others and not something they personally witnessed, they should be made to stand in front of a judge and explain their actions and the accused must be able to make them do so with the least hindrance as possible.

this is not what the thread is about but good story though!

[elkhunter11]

this is not what the thread is about but good story though!

But this does demonstrate why the new legislation is flawed. Mistakes do get made, and the accused should not be charged a fee, if it turns out that a mistake was made.

[58thecat]

But this does demonstrate why the new legislation is flawed. Mistakes do get made, and the accused should not be charged a fee, if it turns out that a mistake was made.

oh I agree that a non refundable fee is a crock of crap....hope a revision of this idiotic policy is implemented sooner than later.
mistakes will be made and if so then you get your money back.

[walking buffalo]

Are you frogs enjoying the warm bath?


As was reported in the thread on this topic last year,

This is NOT just about traffic tickets,
This will soon apply to EVERYTHING that is not a jailable offence.

I backed up this fact with copies of the legislation, the Hansard record, and several documents, yet few cared to learn, most just wanted to parrot feeling that I couldn't be right, yet here we are, right on schedule, phase two of three.

Get your head out of the sand, your butt out of the water before the boil!

This is NOT about just drunk drivers (phase one)!
This is NOT about just traffic tickets (phase two)!

THIS IS about the complete dismantling of the right to be innocent until proven guilty!
This IS about the elimination of your right to a fair trial!
This law which has already been passed, will soon apply to EVERY legislation and be applied to any charge that does not include incarceration!


Wake up People!


Read this for the information, know what you are talking about.
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=391327

[58thecat]

https://media1.giphy.com/media/A49qRTnZhaZDW/giphy.gif
Some are!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[walking buffalo]

Some are!


More than just some.

Most of whom doesn't surprise me.

I never would expect you to do more than just lay down and submit.

[Phil McCracken]

I previously expressed my opinion on this topic.

As most may be aware, for the past several years, there has been a shortage with Prosecutors in this Province. As of November 2021, 47 vacancies. Many Criminal Code charges have been dismissed or plea bargained as a result...or dropped because of Charter arguments (ie. right for a speedy trial).

Next in line..Provincial Statutes.

I could be wrong, but may this be also be a factor as to the Province's present directions in regards to these payments?

I don't believe this was mentioned on the press release in regards to this subject...If so I missed it...:)

[elkhunter11]

I previously expressed my opinion on this topic.

As most may be aware, for the past several years, there has been a shortage with Prosecutors in this Province. As of November 2021, 47 vacancies. Many Criminal Code charges have been dismissed or plea bargained as a result...or dropped because of Charter arguments (ie. right for a speedy trial).

Next in line..Provincial Statutes.

I could be wrong, but may this be also be a factor as to the Province's present directions in regards to these payments?

I don't believe this was mentioned on the press release in regards to this subject...If so I missed it...:)

We pay taxes to the province to support the legal system, if the government can't run the legal system, then they need to replace the people that oversee this department, with people that can handle the job. Them not being able to do their jobs, is no excuse for denying the citizens their right to a trial.

[Phil McCracken]

We pay taxes to the province to support the legal system, if the government can't run the legal system, then they need to replace the people that oversee this department, with people that can handle the job. Them not being able to do their jobs, is no excuse for denying the citizens their right to a trial.

I wasn't talking about job qualifications, I was talking about shortages...:)

[Sledhead71]

Are you frogs enjoying the warm bath?


As was reported in the thread on this topic last year,

This is NOT just about traffic tickets,
This will soon apply to EVERYTHING that is not a jailable offence.

I backed up this fact with copies of the legislation, the Hansard record, and several documents, yet few cared to learn, most just wanted to parrot feeling that I couldn't be right, yet here we are, right on schedule, phase two of three.

Get your head out of the sand, your butt out of the water before the boil!

This is NOT about just drunk drivers (phase one)!
This is NOT about just traffic tickets (phase two)!

THIS IS about the complete dismantling of the right to be innocent until proven guilty!
This IS about the elimination of your right to a fair trial!
This law which has already been passed, will soon apply to EVERY legislation and be applied to any charge that does not include incarceration!


Wake up People!


Read this for the information, know what you are talking about.
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=391327

Easy to pick the low lying fruit until the tree is void of any fruit / rights.

[elkhunter11]

I wasn't talking about job qualifications, I was talking about shortages...:)

I wasn't talking about the people doing the actual work, as in prosecutors, judges etc, I am talking about the people in the government that run the entire system. If those people can't solve the problems, then replace them with someone that can.

[Sledhead71]

the real problem is the donkeys on AO are constantly and blatantly breaking laws they do not agree with, then going to a ticket fighter to get it dismissed or lowered because they can spend money.

If we are calling names, look in the mirror first.

I dont see anyone welcoming it either, everyone agrees it is flawed but it is here.

Also- if a Sworn Officer writes a ticket in Court the onus is on you to prove they are wrong.

Buy a dash camera, front and rear facing with GPS and a real big SD card and the troubles go away.

Just a question for you Ken, have you looked into the requirement to haul your loader around from site to site clearing snow in the winter ?

We haul a ton of iron and it is grossly expensive to trailer this from site to site... Driving down public roads is a no go for us, but others feel they are exempt from the current laws in place.

[58thecat]

More than just some.

Most of whom doesn't surprise me.

I never would expect you to do more than just lay down and submit.


Ohhh my you don’t really know me at all but you like all are entitled to your opinion enjoy your day


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pikergolf]

Not guilty, your cost back. Guilty, fine plus court costs. So easy.

[JDK71]

Just a question for you Ken, have you looked into the requirement to haul your loader around from site to site clearing snow in the winter ?

We haul a ton of iron and it is grossly expensive to trailer this from site to site... Driving down public roads is a no go for us, but others feel they are exempt from the current laws in place.

great question i have to say i get a little mad when we are getting a 928 mobbed around town and you have a 966 roll by though a stop sign and give a big wave to us

[Talking moose]

Not guilty, your cost back. Guilty, fine plus court costs. So easy.

Just like the NHL.
You want to review a call? Better be right. You will pay a penalty for wasting people’s time if not.
Same system.

[bat119]

This only affects the ones that get tickets, the majority of drivers would only deal with the court once every blue moon.
Trying to beat a speeding ticket is almost futile they have you electronically on film, moving violations can be a matter of opinion with solid proof you might get off.
The cost of traveling to the jurisdiction and taking a day off work can never be recouped even if you win the new system might be cheaper in the long run.

I find the ones that whine the loudest about those darn cops are the ones that get the most tickets, maybe it's them ?

[elkhunter11]

This only affects the ones that get tickets, the majority of drivers would only deal with the court once every blue moon.
Trying to beat a speeding ticket is almost futile they have you electronically on film, moving violations can be a matter of opinion with solid proof you might get off.
The cost of traveling to the jurisdiction and taking a day off work can never be recouped even if you win the new system might be cheaper in the long run.

I find the ones that whine the loudest about those darn cops are the ones that get the most tickets, maybe it's them ?

I have had three tickets in 46 years of driving, none in the last 10 years, so I don't object because it is costing me money. I was actually issued a fourth ticket about 40 years ago, and it was total nonsense, an officer that bungled the speed, and was so clueless that he put my court date down for a Sunday, so I did nothing, and the ticket was never re issued. So I paid the three tickets, and the fourth just disappeared. My concern though, is firstly, since I did have one nonsense ticket, I could get another one, and more importantly, I could get wrongly accused of doing something more serious in the future, and not have the right to a trial.

Personally, I would prefer the right to a trial remain, but they go to a two tiered fine system, if you contest the ticket, you pay the full amount of the fine, if you plead guilty and pay the fine, you pay a greatly reduced fine, say 50%. That would keep the people that like to fight every ticket from bothering, as it would cost them twice as much, since they would lose most of the time. And it would keep the right to a trial, for those people that genuinely feel that they are innocent.

[bat119]

I was actually issued a fourth ticket about 40 years ago, and it was total nonsense, an officer that bungled the speed,

Technology has advanced since the days of aircraft radar etc. some still use the inaccuracy of speedometers to excuse speeding, modern speedo's on standard equipped vehicles are very accurate.
Despite driving across Canada for work and pleasure I haven't had a ticket since 1979 when I learned there's nothing to gained by speeding.

[Mulehahn]

I have never recieved a fine for going more than 15km over the speed limit.* Now, as near as I can tell under the current rules the fines I would of recieved under the current rates would max out at $126. That $50 charged is 40%. It would be a higher percentage for going slower. Adding 40% to the fine before I am even found guilty is insane.

In theory could they not have police write everyone going 5 to 15 km over the limit a ticket, then if the ticket is challenged and the province in no way tried to defend it they still make, on average, 50% of the revenue. And that is only if every single person appealed. I don't know how much cops make but doubt it would be too hard to find 3 people an hour going 56 in 50 zone. That is a guaranteed $150 an hour brought in plus those who don't appeal. Probably puts some change in the coffers while covering the officer's and adjudicator's salaries.

Personally, I would support higher fines (Alberta fines are lower than most other provinces) with a discount if paid within a certain time. Say within the time you have to file an appeal. If they want to make $50, write my fine for $180 but knock off $50 if paid with in 2 week time you have to file appeal. Still come $6 ahead of where you would be writing me a ticket if I pay and if I lose in court it a wash.

**(one was for 37 in a playground zone ((school zone/playground zones had different times and I messed up switching from one to snother)), one for 11 over on a street behind a bar as it was letting out, and one in BC going 115 in a 100 zone 2 days before they bumped the limit up to 110. I got upset at the last one but still paid them all because at end of day I was speeding. )

[Ken07AOVette]

While a Dash camera can help to prove that you are innocent, exactly how does it prevent you being issued a wrongful ticket? You are still going to have to pay the fee to contest the ticket, if the guy beside you triggers the intersection camera, and is next to you when the picture is taken or when the guy next to you triggers the photo radar, as he passes you. And even if an officer issues the ticket, many are not going to be the slight bit interested in watching your dash cam footage when they pull you over, just because you are Ken .

You know none of your reply was condescending or miserable until the very last line. You just cant help yourself can you? Here I thought was being civil for once, going to add something without being you, and you proved me wrong.
100% consistency.

[Ken07AOVette]

Just a question for you Ken, have you looked into the requirement to haul your loader around from site to site clearing snow in the winter ?

We haul a ton of iron and it is grossly expensive to trailer this from site to site... Driving down public roads is a no go for us, but others feel they are exempt from the current laws in place.

I dont.
I have a single contract.
It is 4 blocks from my house.
I'm not exempt from anything.

[elkhunter11]

You know none of your reply was condescending or miserable until the very last line. You just cant help yourself can you? Here I thought was being civil for once, going to add something without being you, and you proved me wrong.
100% consistency.

And of course you didn't answer my question.:sHa_sarcasticlol:

Exactly how will a dashcam prevent you from receiving a ticket? :thinking-006:

[walking buffalo]

The water is only at "an acceptable to many warm".

The heat will be turned up again once the frogs get comfortable with the new temperature.

Don't be fooled into believing that this ends with traffic tickets.


https://www.alberta.ca/making-alberta-roads-safer.aspx

Bill 21 is part of a larger Justice Transformation Initiative that will be implemented in three phases:

Phase 1: create an adjudication branch with a mandate to resolve impaired driving-related contraventions of the Traffic Safety Act, to be operational in the fall of 2020. Also strengthen the administrative penalties for impaired driving.

Phase 2: expand the jurisdiction of the adjudication branch to address all other contraventions of the Traffic Safety Act, except those that result in bodily harm or death, by the end of 2021.

Phase 3: expand the administrative adjudication process such that it could be adopted and adapted for use by any regulated area of provincial jurisdiction. The timeline for Phase 3 diversion will be determined upon the conclusion of Phase 2.


The legislation, this is already Law....
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/sa-2020-c-p-30.8/latest/sa-2020-c-p-30.8.html

[Sledhead71]

I dont.
I have a single contract.
It is 4 blocks from my house.
I'm not exempt from anything.

So you haul the loader then to the site you contract for ?

[58thecat]

The water is only at "an acceptable to many warm".

The heat will be turned up again once the frogs get comfortable with the new temperature.

Don't be fooled into believing that this ends with traffic tickets.


https://www.alberta.ca/making-alberta-roads-safer.aspx

Bill 21 is part of a larger Justice Transformation Initiative that will be implemented in three phases:

Phase 1: create an adjudication branch with a mandate to resolve impaired driving-related contraventions of the Traffic Safety Act, to be operational in the fall of 2020. Also strengthen the administrative penalties for impaired driving.

Phase 2: expand the jurisdiction of the adjudication branch to address all other contraventions of the Traffic Safety Act, except those that result in bodily harm or death, by the end of 2021.

Phase 3: expand the administrative adjudication process such that it could be adopted and adapted for use by any regulated area of provincial jurisdiction. The timeline for Phase 3 diversion will be determined upon the conclusion of Phase 2.


The legislation, this is already Law....
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/sa-2020-c-p-30.8/latest/sa-2020-c-p-30.8.html


Well then perhaps we needs a big serving of frog legs....you sir will be the chef...and I dont want any of those skinny legged ones from out east I want the big spoiled fat buggers from Alberta. ‘Berta Legs:sHa_shakeshout:


I think you get my point that we agree on the bs going on needs to stop but it won’t happen here on a forum....this crap will play out and soon be turned around down a more logical course but that will take time...unfortunately.:(

Lightly battered, deep fried with a squeeze of lemon please:)

[fishnguy]

I have received a red light ticket once. Afraid to exaggerate, but has gotta be 15-ish years ago in Ontario. I was driving my dad’s vehicle too, so he was the one who got issued the ticket. I new exactly when and where it happened. I hit the breaks, but hit some black ice and rolled through about a third of the intersection before I fully stopped and reversed back to the stop line. Happened in the middle of the night too. I went to court and talked to the prosecutor. He said that my dad has to be there instead of me (I didn’t know) but still threw the ticket out after I explained to him what happened and looking at the photos he had (they are much better than what a guy gets), where you can clearly see I was reversing when the second pic was taken and I never crossed the intersection. I don’t remember what the fine was but it couldn’t be much more than $150. Why would I go to court if I had to pay that regardless and more if they didn’t reverse the ticket?

I also got a speeding photo ticket a couple of months ago in GP. I have no idea how and where, but it must have been, right? So I paid the fine.

So it is 50% guilty for me and it was resolved accordingly. The $150 fee if it is nonrefundable is complete bs, obviously.

Another time I went to court was when I got a speeding ticket about 20 years ago when a cop pulled me over in a “transition zone” from 70 to 50. The cop was in the middle of the road showing me to pull over when the 50 sign was still way ahead of me. Well, the cop said that his radar is calibrated to the distance, he has been working with radars since before the dinosaurs, training people to work with radars, etc. I bet you he had a superman suit under the uniform. After I told the judge what happened, he said that my eyes must have played a trick on me and the cop and his radar cannot be wrong. I let them all know what I thought if their “due process” (I was young). I will probably never forget how that played out - it scarred me for life, hahahha.

But yeah, the nonrefundable fee (if that is the case) is insanity. Probably higher than a good chunk of tickets issued.

[Ken07AOVette]

More than just some.

Most of whom doesn't surprise me.

I never would expect you to do more than just lay down and submit.

If I'm going down it's swinging.
Unless I am in the wrong in the first place.

[Ken07AOVette]

So you haul the loader then to the site you contract for ?

Which part of 4 blocks from my contract do you not understand?
I am fully legal driving the loader where I do.

[JD848]

The water is only at "an acceptable to many warm".

The heat will be turned up again once the frogs get comfortable with the new temperature.

Don't be fooled into believing that this ends with traffic tickets.


https://www.alberta.ca/making-alberta-roads-safer.aspx

Bill 21 is part of a larger Justice Transformation Initiative that will be implemented in three phases:

Phase 1: create an adjudication branch with a mandate to resolve impaired driving-related contraventions of the Traffic Safety Act, to be operational in the fall of 2020. Also strengthen the administrative penalties for impaired driving.

Phase 2: expand the jurisdiction of the adjudication branch to address all other contraventions of the Traffic Safety Act, except those that result in bodily harm or death, by the end of 2021.

Phase 3: expand the administrative adjudication process such that it could be adopted and adapted for use by any regulated area of provincial jurisdiction. The timeline for Phase 3 diversion will be determined upon the conclusion of Phase 2.


The legislation, this is already Law....
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/sa-2020-c-p-30.8/latest/sa-2020-c-p-30.8.html

Only the ones who block roads and highways, railroads ,stop pipelines . Those things are all very illegal and have nothing to do with a protest ,but the law over looks this stuff. No fines.

You came on here telling us before covid that AN ACT OF WAR against our country was coming , yet since it was you no action was taken. But some average guy who would make comments like that would be lock up certainly be talked to.

So all your pals when covid hit were given first shots and first crack at medical treatment in any place in Canada with help from our Military risking there life and in helping others who dislike them. It's like me hatting my neighbor ,but today were friends cause I need help for ten minutes the other 23hours and 50 minutes back to normal . That's not right.

But as soon as this all clears up we the tax paying people are on the hook if we spit on the sidewalk, yet others get away with crimes I would get ten years for, plus my arrs in court paying for there down time.

Like a member said the other day when you think your more special and deserve things because of your skin color ,then you are the racist.

My rant for the day, no one likes it they know how to get rid of me, exit 1 2 3.

Cheers
JD

[Sledhead71]

Which part of 4 blocks from my contract do you not understand?
I am fully legal driving the loader where I do.

The only exemptions I know of are agricultural... If you don't mind, can you point me in the right direction of how move your loader ? I would appreciate the information.

Thanks and sorry for the derail...

[Phil McCracken]

Only the ones who block roads and highways, railroads ,stop pipelines . Those things are all very illegal and have nothing to do with a protest ,but the law over looks this stuff. No fines.

You came on here telling us before covid that AN ACT OF WAR against our country was coming , yet since it was you no action was taken. But some average guy who would make comments like that would be lock up certainly be talked to.

So all your pals when covid hit were given first shots and first crack at medical treatment in any place in Canada with help from our Military risking there life and in helping others who dislike them. It's like me hatting my neighbor ,but today were friends cause I need help for ten minutes the other 23hours and 50 minutes back to normal . That's not right.

But as soon as this all clears up we the tax paying people are on the hook if we spit on the sidewalk, yet others get away with crimes I would get ten years for, plus my arrs in court paying for there down time.

Like a member said the other day when you think your more special and deserve things because of your skin color ,then you are the racist.

My rant for the day, no one likes it they know how to get rid of me, exit 1 2 3.

Cheers
JD

Not about Covid...relax...:)

[JD848]

Not about Covid...relax...:)

This is not about covid,so relax. It's about laws some think there above .

Cheers
JD

[Fish along]

So my question is,when this all gets put in place, anyone who causes an infraction and is caught on radar will have to pay,no exceptions,unless the radar is in error correct?

[elkhunter11]

So my question is,when this all gets put in place, anyone who causes an infraction and is caught on radar will have to pay,no exceptions,unless the radar is in error correct?

You will pay whether you contest the ticket or not, and whether you are guilty or not. How much you pay, will depend on whether you contest the ticket, or not, and if you contest it, if the review goes in your favor or not. Once this is system is in place, even those that are found not guilty in the ticket review will be punished financially

[58thecat]

You will pay whether you contest the ticket or not, and whether you are guilty or not. How much you pay, will depend on whether you contest the ticket, or not, and if you contest it, if the review goes in your favor or not. Once this is system is in place, even those that are found not guilty in the ticket review will be punished financially


Meh, this will be revisited and adjusted to not reflect this!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[flyrodfisher]

Once this is system is in place, even those that are found not guilty in the ticket review will be punished financially

And that is exactly the problem.
If you are found not guilty...your money should be refunded AND the court should award you damages

[Ken07AOVette]

And that is exactly the problem.
If you are found not guilty...your money should be refunded AND the court should award you damages

Damages?

I agree with the first part, but damages?

[flyrodfisher]

Damages?

I agree with the first part, but damages?

One example of damages...would be taking time off work to PROVE your innocence...

[elkhunter11]

Meh, this will be revisited and adjusted to not reflect this!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just because you assume that, doesn't make it true. And even if it does happen, it could take a long time, so for the time being, everyone that is accused, will be punished financially.

[58thecat]

Just because you assume that, doesn't make it true. And even if it does happen, it could take a long time, so for the time being, everyone that is accused, will be punished financially.


We are all assuming here and speculating
Feb 1st we will see!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Phil McCracken]

We are all assuming here and speculating
Feb 1st we will see!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There you go.

Agree...:)

[Phil McCracken]

Damages?

I agree with the first part, but damages?

Hey Ken...can't argue with a rock...:)

[RandyBoBandy]

Hey Ken...can't argue with a rock...:)

:sHa_sarcasticlol::sHa_sarcasticlol:

[Trochu]

Damages?

I agree with the first part, but damages?

If buddy said he had a gun you wanted, was holding it, would meet you at Bass Pro, you drive in, meet him, and he sold it to someone else, would you be good with that or is your time/gas worth something?

[elkhunter11]

If the government deserves to be compensated for spending their time reviewing a ticket, why shouldn't a wrongly accused person be compensated for having to waste their time contesting a false accusation? Aren't both sides trying to determine the truth, to prove whether a violation occured?

[Fish along]

You will pay whether you contest the ticket or not, and whether you are guilty or not. How much you pay, will depend on whether you contest the ticket, or not, and if you contest it, if the review goes in your favor or not. Once this is system is in place, even those that are found not guilty in the ticket review will be punished financially

Ok thanks i understand the penalties and whether you contest it or not, but will it cover everyone? Of course police officers and emergency responders while on duty would be exempt, and that is just common sense,other than these types of scenarios everyone else will be automatically fined,even the guys who are reviewing the infractions.

[Talking moose]

If the government deserves to be compensated for spending their time reviewing a ticket, why shouldn't a wrongly accused person be compensated for having to waste their time contesting a false accusation? Aren't both sides trying to determine the truth, to prove whether a violation occured?

I’ve always thought this.
People have been incarcerated for murder and 20 years later DNA has provided the truth. These people have been compensated for every year in jail. (It could never be enough).
Why are innocent people on lesser chargers expected to just eat the financial damages that accrued through the process?

[C2C3PO]

Ok thanks i understand the penalties and whether you contest it or not, but will it cover everyone? Of course police officers and emergency responders while on duty would be exempt, and that is just common sense,other than these types of scenarios everyone else will be automatically fined,even the guys who are reviewing the infractions.


Actually this is not the case. EPS requires sworn members on-duty in a police vehicle to pay all photo radar tickets UNLESS it can be proven that they had a justifiable reason to be speeding. The one exception is for marked units WITH their emergency equipment on.......

[elkhunter11]

Ok thanks i understand the penalties and whether you contest it or not, but will it cover everyone? Of course police officers and emergency responders while on duty would be exempt, and that is just common sense,other than these types of scenarios everyone else will be automatically fined,even the guys who are reviewing the infractions.

Of course some dignitaries, and certain other people will never be issued a ticket, or the ticket will just disappear, the position that you hold, and the people that you know, will always be a factor, just like it is with most things in life.

[RandyBoBandy]

Of course some dignitaries, and certain other people will never be issued a ticket, or the ticket will just disappear, the position that you hold, and the people that you know, will always be a factor, just like it is with most things in life.

REALLY ??? :confused0024:

[Fish along]

Of course some dignitaries, and certain other people will never be issued a ticket, or the ticket will just disappear, the position that you hold, and the people that you know, will always be a factor, just like it is with most things in life.

Thanks, so it's just business as usual, only now it's legalized highway banditry and if you complain it's going to cost even more money. So in essence pay up and shut up.:)

[6.5 shooter]

GUILTY .... Till proven innocent? kind of back wards is it not ????? But hey if it saves just one copper from having to show up in court, it is worth it?? RIGHT???

How far we have fallen!

[huntinstuff]

Set the nets up on the High Level for all those traffic cops who thrive on court time.....

[ssyd]

Chip, chip, chip as your rights are slowly chipped away. Amazing how many frogs are willing to sit in the water.

Yet we continue to vote for the same guys who are doing it!

[Fisherdan]

GUILTY .... Till proven innocent? kind of back wards is it not ????? But hey if it saves just one copper from having to show up in court, it is worth it?? RIGHT???

How far we have fallen!

Perfectly said.

[walking buffalo]

Only the ones who block roads and highways, railroads ,stop pipelines . Those things are all very illegal and have nothing to do with a protest ,but the law over looks this stuff. No fines.

You came on here telling us before covid that AN ACT OF WAR against our country was coming , yet since it was you no action was taken. But some average guy who would make comments like that would be lock up certainly be talked to.

So all your pals when covid hit were given first shots and first crack at medical treatment in any place in Canada with help from our Military risking there life and in helping others who dislike them. It's like me hatting my neighbor ,but today were friends cause I need help for ten minutes the other 23hours and 50 minutes back to normal . That's not right.

But as soon as this all clears up we the tax paying people are on the hook if we spit on the sidewalk, yet others get away with crimes I would get ten years for, plus my arrs in court paying for there down time.

Like a member said the other day when you think your more special and deserve things because of your skin color ,then you are the racist.

My rant for the day, no one likes it they know how to get rid of me, exit 1 2 3.

Cheers
JD

:confused:
Try telling me again in the morning....

[walking buffalo]

Set the nets up on the High Level for all those traffic cops who thrive on court time.....

Oh heck no.
No nets for those coppers.

[JD848]

:confused:
Try telling me again in the morning....

It's morning so fire away . No confusion at all , your type isn't hard to read .

JD

[Ariu]

This is all about the money. The prov is broke, cities are broke….
They are paying 6 figures to police officers, imposing quotas on them and turning them basically in a taxman in uniform.

I was wondering if we would have this discussion with oil $150 a barrel and with no Covid sh*** to be financed.

Brace yourselves the winter is coming. Soon the guns will be considered luxury goods and taxed as such, civil claim fees will be going up…. and whatever fu**** they will invent to fill the money pit.

[mikefromcanmore]

His concerns with Bill 21 Provincial Administrative Penalties Act and the 3 Phase implementation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXHF_fULvwA

Please watch this as this one came out over a year ago. This set of changes will give certain Marsupials from Australia a bad rap.

[Stinky Buffalo]

Someone started a petition on change.org about this:

https://chng.it/c8B4bwDQvk

[huntinstuff]

. ......

[walking buffalo]

Kenney is running scared.
Pulling back on his dictatorial ambitions.


Proposed undemocratic traffic court law to be scrapped soon — take a bow, Albertans
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/corbella-proposed-undemocratic-traffic-court-law-to-be-scrapped-soon-take-a-bow-albertans

[Savage Bacon]

That's good news!

Sent from my SM-G970W using Tapatalk

[elkhunter11]

Kenney is running scared.
Pulling back on his dictatorial ambitions.


Proposed undemocratic traffic court law to be scrapped soon — take a bow, Albertans
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/corbella-proposed-undemocratic-traffic-court-law-to-be-scrapped-soon-take-a-bow-albertans

Great news for a change.

[Twisted Canuck]

That *IS* good news!! Maybe writing my MLA and Kenney actually did do some good this time?

[stubblejumper01]

the real problem is the donkeys on AO are constantly and blatantly breaking laws they do not agree with, then going to a ticket fighter to get it dismissed or lowered because they can spend money.

If we are calling names, look in the mirror first.

I dont see anyone welcoming it either, everyone agrees it is flawed but it is here.

Also- if a Sworn Officer writes a ticket in Court the onus is on you to prove they are wrong.

Buy a dash camera, front and rear facing with GPS and a real big SD card and the troubles go away.

Will a dash camera really help you though? It sounds like to contest a ticket is done over the phone? Hopefully they allow you to email the camera footage to the adjudicator. I have heard in the past of police not being able to use dash cam video as evidence.