“More S. 172 Comedy Gold”

If your vehicle is stolen and then found and impounded, s. 172 (9) and (15) require you as the owner to pay towing and storage fees before your stolen property will be returned to you.

Should you refuse refuse to pay, the impound facility who is now in possession of your stolen property is entitled to sell your stolen property.

Have you ever heard of anything so stupid?

First of all, its stolen property.

Second, the police know it belongs to you and must return it to its rightful owner at no cost.

Third, the impound facility is now in possession of stolen property under Criminal Code s. 354(1). Possession is defined in Criminal Code s. 4(3).

Theft of the vehicle is a Criminal Code offence.

Section 172 (9) states that "Despite the detention or impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section, a police officer may release the motor vehicle to its owner before it is impounded under subsection (7) or, subject to subsection (15), may direct the operator of the impound facility where the motor vehicle is impounded to release the motor vehicle to its owner before the expiry of the seven days if the officer is satisfied that the motor vehicle was stolen at the time that it was driven on a highway in contravention of subsection (1)."

Section 172 (15) states "The person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under subsection (7) is not required to release the motor vehicle until the removal and impound costs for the vehicle have been paid."

Section 172 (14) states "The costs incurred by the person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under this section are a lien on the motor vehicle that may be enforced under the Repair and Storage Liens Act."

Section 172 (16) states "The owner of a motor vehicle that is impounded under this section may bring an action against the driver of the motor vehicle at the time the vehicle was detained under clause (5) (b) to recover any costs or other losses incurred by the owner in connection with the impoundment."

However, the person who stole the vehicle from the owner might not be caught by police; he mayve run off on foot and got away after being chased by police for violating any provision within s. 172.

The owner of the car would not know who the driver was so the owner can not sue the driver. This would leave the owner of the vehicle to pay the impound facility to get his stolen property back.

Courts have already ruled that vicarious liability has no role in quasi-criminal statutes and is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The law cannot allow the impound facility who is in possession of stolen property to remain in possession of the stolen property or to benefit from being in possession of the stolen property by selling it when the rightful owner is known.

So, enforcing the law can be illegal......I like it.............

THANK YOU!

Lawman wrote:If your vehicle is stolen and then found and impounded, s. 172 (9) and (15) require you as the owner to pay towing and storage fees before your stolen property will be returned to you.

Should you refuse refuse to pay, the impound facility who is now in possession of your stolen property is entitled to sell your stolen property.

Have you ever heard of anything so stupid?

First of all, its stolen property.

Second, the police know it belongs to you and must return it to its rightful owner at no cost.

Third, the impound facility is now in possession of stolen property under Criminal Code s. 354(1). Possession is defined in Criminal Code s. 4(3).

Theft of the vehicle is a Criminal Code offence.

Section 172 (9) states that "Despite the detention or impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section, a police officer may release the motor vehicle to its owner before it is impounded under subsection (7) or, subject to subsection (15), may direct the operator of the impound facility where the motor vehicle is impounded to release the motor vehicle to its owner before the expiry of the seven days if the officer is satisfied that the motor vehicle was stolen at the time that it was driven on a highway in contravention of subsection (1)."

Section 172 (15) states "The person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under subsection (7) is not required to release the motor vehicle until the removal and impound costs for the vehicle have been paid."

Section 172 (14) states "The costs incurred by the person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under this section are a lien on the motor vehicle that may be enforced under the Repair and Storage Liens Act."

Section 172 (16) states "The owner of a motor vehicle that is impounded under this section may bring an action against the driver of the motor vehicle at the time the vehicle was detained under clause (5) (b) to recover any costs or other losses incurred by the owner in connection with the impoundment."

However, the person who stole the vehicle from the owner might not be caught by police; he mayve run off on foot and got away after being chased by police for violating any provision within s. 172.

The owner of the car would not know who the driver was so the owner can not sue the driver. This would leave the owner of the vehicle to pay the impound facility to get his stolen property back.

Courts have already ruled that vicarious liability has no role in quasi-criminal statutes and is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The law cannot allow the impound facility who is in possession of stolen property to remain in possession of the stolen property or to benefit from being in possession of the stolen property by selling it when the rightful owner is known.