“Parking Ticket Scam”

Clearly Option 1 on the parking infraction notice instructs you to only pay the set fine should you wish to settle out of court.

The parking infraction notice is in compliance with s. 16 of the POA, as it should be.

Payment out of court

16. A defendant who does not wish to dispute the charge may deliver the notice and amount of the set fine to the place shown on the notice.

A person settling out of court is not required to pay the victim surcharge or court cost fines.

POA regulation 945 imposes various court cost fines for parking tickets.

$16.00 upon conviction under subsection 18.2 (6) of the Act. $12.75 upon conviction under section 18.4 of the Act. $3.75 for service of a parking infraction notice issued other than under a municipal by-law. $3.75 upon conviction under section 18 of the Act as it read on August 31, 1993.

These fines only apply for purposes of s. 60(1).

Section 60(1) is found under POA Part IV - trials and sentencing.

Section 60(1) fines only applies if you proceed to trial and lose your case there.

I haven't received a parking ticket in a long time.

Are provincial offences officer's adding these court cost fines to the set fine and indicating a false amount on the ticket?

I don't know.

There is no spot for these additional fines on the parking infraction notice and the notice does not indicate you must pay the total payable; it just says you must pay the set fine.

Parking tickets can occur under the HTA or under a municipal by-law.

Municipalities issuing tickets keep the money they raise.

Municipalities to collect fines

18.6 (1) Subject to the regulations, the municipalities authorized to do so by the regulations shall collect and retain for their own purposes the fines levied for convictions respecting parking infractions under their by-laws.

(5) If a conviction is entered respecting a parking infraction and the parking infraction is not under a by-law of a municipality to which subsection (1) applies, the clerk of the court shall give notice to the person against whom the conviction is entered of the date and place of the infraction, the date of the conviction and the amount of the fine.

What is also worrisome to me is that, as mentioned, a victim surcharge does not apply to a conviction under Part II of the POA.

Part II is the parking ticket portion of the Act.

The surcharge only applies to Part I and III.

Surcharge

60.1 (1) If a person is convicted of an offence in a proceeding commenced under Part I or III and a fine is imposed in respect of that offence, a surcharge is payable by that person in the amount determined by regulations made under this Act.

However, in addition to commencing a parking ticket proceeding under Part II of the Act, they can also be commenced under Part III.

Proceeding, parking infraction

14.1 In addition to the procedure set out in Part III for commencing a proceeding by laying an information, a proceeding in respect of a parking infraction may be commenced in accordance with this Part.

Therefore, all a money hungry government has to do is issue parking tickets under Part III instead of Part II, and the accused now becomes subject to the victim surcharge under s. 60.1(1).

Sneaky eh?

But as the Greatest Canadian, I suggest to you that issuing parking infractions by summons under Part III is not permitted by law, despite the language claiming it is legal under s. 14.1.

As evidenced in s. 16, a person has the option of paying the set fine and settling out of court. A summons requires you to attend court. Upon a conviction in court, the accused is still only subject to the set fine, however, now they are also facing the victim surcharge under s. 60.1(1) as well as the court cost fines articulated in POA regualtion 945.

I think I understand why a summons might be required at times, but it's still not permitted, in my view.

Say a provincial offences officer is in the process of writing up a parking ticket and the driver gets in the car and drives off before the officer can place the ticket on the car or before he can serve the driver personally at the time of the infraction.

The ticket could not be issued without access to issuing a summons to the vehicle owner who can be located by the licence plate number.

Service on owner

15(4) The issuing provincial offences officer may serve the parking infraction notice on the owner of the vehicle identified in the notice,

(a) by affixing it to the vehicle in a conspicuous place at the time of the alleged infraction; or

(b) by delivering it personally to the person having care and control of the vehicle at the time of the alleged infraction.

However, being issued a summons for a parking ticket creates a procedural miscarriage of justice as the accused is not permitted to settle out of court. They must attend court due to the summons.

Morover, s. 15(4) states the ticket may be served on the owner of the vehicle idenified in the notice.

The owner in the notice would be identifed by the licence plate number.

Section 15(4)(b) states the ticket may be served perosnally upon the driver in care and control of the vehicle at the time of the infraction.

However, despite 15.(4)(b), the driver of the vehicle is not always the owner of the vehicle idenified in the notice written up by the officer.

Therefore, if a ticket is served on a driver who is not the owner, then the ticket was not served in compliance with the language of s 15(4) of the POA.

Most importantly, vicarious liabilities under the HTA, and most probably under a municipal by-law, are unconstitutional. The ticket must be served upon the person committing the offence.

The owner of the vehicle commits no wrongdoing, as lending your vehicle is not illegal.

If parking tickets can be issued to the owner who was not driving and commited no offence, then persons who rent cars and lease cars never have to pay parking fees or worry about parking ticket fines.

When a vehicle is leased the lessor is still the owner of the vehicle and the leasee is not. The same principal applies to renting a car.

Lessors cannot contract out of vicarious liabilities, meaning they cannot by way of carefully drafted terms of a lease agreement, contract out of the vicarious liability provisions found in the HTA, POA or a municipal by-law.

Additionally, if the owner refuses to paid the parking ticket fine committed by a driver, the fine would go into default. In default of payment, the court could order that any permit or licence be suspended under s. 69(2), or issue a warrant requiring that the owner be arrested and brought before a justice under s. 69(6), or issue a warrant for the persons committal under s. 69(14) and (16).

A parking ticket is an absoulte liability offence. A term of imprisonment attached to it is unconstitutional. Though no term is attached, the owner could still be imprisoned though that person has done nothing wrong.

With the potenial loss of liberty, vicarious liability cannot be justified and violate s. 7 of the Charter, and the breach is not saved under s. 1.