And the dumbass award goes to... JP M. Coopersmith
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight. ... cj153.html
"The police officer was asked why he chose to charge the defendant under s.172, as opposed to s.128 of the HTA, given that speeding was the only driving action the officer observed. He responded that the defendants vehicle was rocketing past other vehicles and the defendants driving conduct would fit many different categories, such as performing a stunt, speeding, disobeying an official sign, perhaps even careless driving, but based on the circumstances, the s.172 charge was appropriate at that time."
I say;
If the driver was going 50 kph over the speed limit under s. 128 they would still be rocketing pass those doing the speed limit.
JP says;
"I know of no single offence which is categorized simultaneously as both a strict liability and an absolute liability offence."
I say;
That's because it's not permitted.
JP says;
"Furthermore, although not determinative in and of itself, when viewed within the regulatory pattern of the HTA, the fact that s.128 falls under Part IX – Rate of speed, whereas s.172 is within Part X – Rules of the Road, serves, in my mind, to reinforce the Legislatures intention to distance and distinguish an offence under s.172 from one of speeding under s.128."
I say;
Rates of speed are also rules of the road.
JP says;
"With respect to s.172 and the regulations made thereunder, I am of the opinion that there is nothing whatsoever in the scheme of the HTA to indicate that any offences of absolute liability were intended."
I say;
How about the words "is guilty," and how about the licence being suspended on the spot, and how about the car being impounded on the spot?
JP says;
"I find that speeding at excessive rates of speed is a significant risk factor, in and of itself, and is the subject matter of one of many behaviours the legislation intended to capture under s.172, distinct from simple speeding."
I say;
Speeding at any rate of speed over the speed limit is covered under s. 128 and is an absolute Liability offence.
JP says;
"I am satisfied that the Legislature is sufficiently skilled at drawing lines under which a particular offence has not been committed and over which a person may be charged."
I say;
lol
"In my opinion, 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit which defines the performance of a stunt, without any other accompanying hazard, is driving conduct which in and of itself creates a sufficiently significant hazard. "
I say,
Which is why it's an absolute liablty offence with no due diligence excuses permitted.
Decisions to date re: Charter Applications and HTA Section 172 & O.Reg. 455/07
R. v. Araujo, (August 27, 2008), 2008 ONCJ 507 (CanLII), 2008 ONCJ 507 (Ont. C.J.), P. MacPhail J.P., (Burlington)
R. v. Piette, (September 17, 2008), 2008 ONCJ 466 (Ont. C.J.), D. Doelman J.P. (Napanee)
Muskoka (Dist. Municipality) v. Luo, (October 2, 2008), 2008 ONCJ 478 (Ont. C.J.), S. Evans J.P. (Bracebridge)
R. v. Mongeon, (October 10, 2008), 2008 ONCJ 562 (Ont. C.J.), N. Ross J.P. (Sudbury)
R. v. Almeida, (November 13, 2008), [2008] O.J. No. 4962; 2008 ONCJ 631 (Ont. C.J.), M. Barnes, J.P. (Caledon)
R. v. Bell, (December 8, 2008), [2008] O.J. No. 5585; 2008 ONCJ 726 (Ont. C.J.), I.S. Chandhoke J.P. (Toronto)
R. v. Bond, (December 10, 2008), [2008] O.J. No. 5582 (Ont. C.J.), J. Desjardins J.P.
R. v. Brown, (January 19, 2009), 2009 ONCJ 6 (CanLII), 2009 ONCJ 6 (Ont. C.J.), M.A. Cuthbertson J.P. (Owen Sound)
R. v. Sgotto, (February 17, 2009), 2009 ONCJ 48 (CanLII), [2009] O.J. No. 647; 2009 ONCJ 48 (Ont. C.J.), M. Frederiksen J.P. (Wasaga Beach)
R. v. Venckus, (March 23, 2009), [2009] O.J. No. 1307 (Ont. C.J.), J. Creelman J.P. (Caledon)
