“Summons Issued To Owner Of Vehicle, Not Driver....wtf???”

Ok so heres the deal on this one:

A family member calls me today concerned and crying . Well apperently her husband was driving his truck which had an expired sticker. Pretty simple right? NO!

Officer further discovers that he was also driving the vehicle without insurance. I know, pretty bad right. Heres the funny twist to this.

Seeing how the vehicle is under his wifes name, the officer issues a Summons to Defendant for his WIFE! Who dosnt even drive and has no drivers license!

I understand no insurance is a no no, but why charge the owner of the vehicle, not the driver?

Has anyone heard of this

Been in law school for a good year now, never heard of this one..

pretty basic CAIA. no insurance goes to the owner. Owner permit Operation of a motor vehicle with no insurance

I have done this numerous times.

OPS

OPS Copper wrote:pretty basic CAIA. no insurance goes to the owner. Owner permit Operation of a motor vehicle with no insurance

I have done this numerous times.

OPS

Really? So does "no insurance" always goto the owner of the vehicle? What happens to them, fine I'm assuming? In this case Owner does not drive , no license. It is kinda weird tho. I mean, how can they issue a summons to defendant, without personally handing it to the defendant? theres got to be something there?

Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act

2. (1) Subject to the regulations, no owner or lessee of a motor vehicle shall,

(a) operate the motor vehicle; or

(b) cause or permit the motor vehicle to be operated,

on a highway unless the motor vehicle is insured under a contract of automobile insurance

Offence

(3) Every owner or lessee of a motor vehicle who,

(a) contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and is liable on a first conviction to a fine of not less than $5,000

Thank you for the replys everyone.

This is interesting to me now for another reason. If the vehicle is under a corporation, and you are obviously NOT a corporation, technically then they cannot hold the individual liable, they must charge the corporation with the offence.

any thoughts?

Whoever is on the ownership as the registered owner, whether it be a person and/or company will be the one who gets charged with the offence

Oh here's an idea. Instead of looking for an out and a way to drive with no insurance why not put just put insurance on the car.

Ops

There are a few sections in the HTA where the owner can be charged instead of the driver. The obvious ones are photo radar and red light cameras, where the owner is always charged. Don't have my HTA handy, but the other sections I can think of off the top of my head are permitting the use of an incorrect plate, val tag, etc.

There used to be quite a few sections but many have been removed over the years.