“Going 50km Over In An 80”

Tonight, I was pulled over for apparently doing 132km in an 80km zone. Although I'd only caught myself doing 120km(yes, still over, I'm aware). After about 30 min of sitting on the side of the road, the officer came over and kindly decided not to take away my license or impound the car on the spot. I did not recieve any fines. He did, however, give me a court date in August. Never mentioning what could/will happen. This was also my first time ever being pulled over, and I'm 19 years old.

I'm looking for some answers as I'm terrified of the consequences. I do realise I was speeding. Has anyone ever had this happen? And what happened when you went to court?

I'm not looking for people to point out I was speeding or to hear I shouldn't have been let off so easily on the spot as I am aware that I was speeding and I do realise the consequences could be big.

Thank you kindly,

Kim.

Did he hand you a ticket or notice indicating what you were charged with? To try to explain this, there are two things that can be used to charge drivers going 50 km/h or more over the speed limit. One of them is section 172, which is street racing/stunt driving. This is where they impound your car and take your license on the spot for 7 days. (Also very unconstitutional... but we'll leave that debate out of this.) There is also section 128, which covers all speeding offences.

If you were charged under section 128, you would need a court date, but they do not tow your car or take your license. It sounds like he did ticket you for doing 132 in an 80 but decided to use section 128 instead of section 172. BTW - where did this happen?

You may want to think about hiring a paralegal to represent you. X-Copper would be a good start. They have free consultations - can't lose anything by talking to them. See what they say. Don't lose too much sleep over it, though. You can also plea-bargain to a lesser speed, such as 35 km/h over the limit or whatever. This would still result in an insurance increase and a fine, but it would be a much smaller insurance increase than if you were convicted for going more than 50-over.

Hope that helps...

Yes, it was under section 128 and he didn't tow the car or take my license. This happened in Ottawa, on bank street.

What I'm concerned about is the most possible consequence. Are we talking license suspended? 10000 dollar fine? Yes, I'm sure I'm over thinking it, but I'd rather prepare myself. Everyone is telling me because this is my first offence, i most likely will get the minimum fine and max points and probable license suspension.

I also had a witness in the car who also said to me she didn't see me going this fast. She said she'd only seen 120. ( yes, i know stillk fast but it's also a difference in charges from speeding under 50 to speeding over 50)

I unfourtunatly can't afford a paralegal. So if I did chose to opt for a plea bargain, how would I go about doing so? Is it in my best interest to bring in my friend as a witness?

Thanks so much for your help so far. It's def made me feel much better.

People are also saying when I go to my court date, if convicted, they could still impound the car. Is this true? Because I haven't read it anywhere else, nor did the officer say they were planning on doing so, although they aren't obligated to.

kimbax0x wrote:People are also saying when I go to my court date, if convicted, they could still impound the car. Is this true? Because I haven't read it anywhere else, nor did the officer say they were planning on doing so, although they aren't obligated to.

If your car was going to be impounded it would have happened road side. What's going to happen though is you will have to explain to a J.P. why you should keep your license, so a paralegal would be a good idea.

You're charged under s. 128. They cannot impound your car even on conviction.

You're facing a fine of $9.75 for each kilometre per hour that you were over the speed limit, thus $507 plus some surcharges.

But, do not plead guilty.

When the cop stopped you, did he speak to you in both French and English?

Where the cop filled in the ticket parts in writing, is the writing parts he filled in in both French and English?

If not, you can beat this charge completely and show them they can't f-over a 19-year old just because she got a need for speed.

It appears the cops are cluing in and not impounding cars for the 50 over.

My guess, Bear has been reading my messages and knows the cops are stealing cars, not impounding them, and Bear has spread the good word around.

Reflections: Thank you kindly for your answer. I didn't think it was possible, but seeing as I've never been in this situation before, I thought it'd be a good idea to ask. Let's say, just for safety, I don't have a paralegal, is it basically 'suicide' to be defending myself and explaining why I should keep my license by myself, sans paralegal?

Lawman: To you, thank you aswell for clearing the car impound situation up. So, is this what they do, even for 50kpm over the speed limit? Charge 9.75 approx. for each kilometer you were doing over the speed limit?

Why shouldn't I plead guilty? Just asking so I can know everything.

No, when the cop stopped me, he did not speak to me in french at all, nor did he write anything french down on the ticket. Or rather, my court summons.

What does french have to do with this? Is it because they are required by law to speak french and english? I was in the south end of Ottawa, where it is mostly english, so I'm assuming this is why he didn't attempt.

Once again, thank you both kindly for taking the time and explaining it to a clueless 19 year old hah.

The French Language Service Act (FLSA) requires all services and procedures to be in both languages. It applies to ALL communications. If the part of the certificate or notice of offence that the cop fills in is not in both languages it doesn't pass the smell test.

Municipalities must pass by-laws in order for the bilingual thing to apply on roads under their jurisdiction. However, many HTA offences involve points. When points are involved it is a provincial matter, and therefore, regardless of whether or not the municipality passed a bilingual by-law the bilingual requirement is still in effect because it applies to Provincial matters.

You're going to argue that when the cop talked to you at the vehicle he must do so in both languages because it a form of communication included in the procedure of commencing the proceeding which is also covered by the FLSA.

The FLSA requires ALL communications to be in both languages and it does not matter whether you even speak or understand both of the languages.

Therefore, when a cop stops a driver and speaks to them, they must speak to them in both languages unless the driver consents to allow the cop to only speak in one language.

The cop never sought your consent to only speak in one language. The fact that you never requested him to speak in both tongues does not mean you consented.

You have a witness with you in the car to prove he never spoke both languages.

You have a summons he filled out that proves it's not filled out in both languages.

You can ask the cop in court while under oath whether he speaks both languages. He may or may not. Even if he's bilingual it doesn't mean he spoke to you in both languages. But if he's not bilingual, its proof beyond any doubt that he did speak in both tongues.

You weren't even aware of this law till now, and until after you were stopped. But the cop was aware of the law before he even stopped you; and he violated the law.

Street name signs are also a communication; thus they must be in both languages if demerit points are involved. Points are involved here.

The street name sign where you were stopped is not in French, is it? It has to be.

The reason the certificates, notices and summons are preprinted in both languages is because the FLSA requires it. Look at the summons; you will see it's in both languages.

When a cop fills in the text, it too must be filled in using both languages or it's not in compliance with the FLSA.

If it's not in compliance with the FLSA, then it's not "regular on its face" for purpose of the Provincial Offence Act (POA).

Tickets not regular on their face cannot be processed.

The court can fix the certificate (and maybe even the summons) at any time and make it in compliance with the FLSA, but the court cannot go back and speak to you in both languages because the stop has already taken place.

They can also not ignore the fact that the street sign is not in both languages.

The fact that an accused understood the ticket or summons and showed up in court on the correct date and at the correct time is meaningless. The documents are still not in compliance with the law.

The Provincial Offences Act articulates that laying a charge is a procedure under Part I and III.

The French Language Services Act guarantees you that all services and procedures will be provided in both French and English.

Certificate of offence and offence notice

3. (1) In addition to the procedure set out in Part III for commencing a proceeding by laying an information, a proceeding in respect of an offence may be commenced by filing a certificate of offence alleging the offence in the office of the court.

Commencement of proceeding by information

21. (1) In addition to the procedure set out in Parts I and II for commencing a proceeding by the filing of a certificate, a proceeding in respect of an offence may be commenced by laying an information.

Definitions

1. In this Act,

"service" means any service or procedure that is provided to the public by a government agency or institution of the Legislature and includes all communications for the purpose.

It doesnt appear to me that demerit points must be posted on the certificate or summons unless the certificate and summons has a spot on it to indicate demerit points are involved.

Bear in mind that not all charges involved points.

The certificate must set out the charge under ss. 13 and/or 25 of the POA.

In my view, demerit points are part of the penalty. Thus, if a set fine is involved, one could argue that demerit points must be posted on the certificate or summons so that the accused knows exactly what he is agreeing to accept as a penalty if he pleads guilty out of court.

If the points are not included, then the ticket is not regular on its face.

The certificate of offence is found on form 1 on the following link. Its so blurry I cant read it all clearly, but it doesnt appear to have a spot for points.

This is a major issue that can be argued.

If youre pleading guilty based upon a set fine and only find out later points are included, that were not indicated on the penalty portion of the ticket certificate or summons, you now could face more penalties by increased insurance rates, or, depending on the amount points you already have, you could face more sanctions from the MTO under s. 56 of the HTA.

And if youre a novice driver, those sanctions can even be higher than a full driver receives.

Section 12(2)(iii) of the POA articulates the consequences of conviction, which includes any purposes of giving effect to any action or result provided for under the Highway Traffic Act.

Therefore, in my view, points MUST be indicated on the certificate or summons otherwise one is being misled as to what they are agreeing to be convicted of.

Interestingly, s. 12 only applies when you are charged by offence notice. If you are issued a summons, s. 12 does not apply even if the offence relates to a HTA offence. Which is totally bizarre.

Other consequences of conviction

12(2) Where a person is convicted of an offence in a proceeding initiated by an offence notice,

(a) a provision in or under any other Act that provides for an action or result following upon a conviction of an offence does not apply to the conviction, except,

...

(iii) for the purposes of giving effect to any action or result provided for under the Highway Traffic Act

kimbax0x wrote:Lawman: To you, thank you aswell for clearing the car impound situation up. So, is this what they do, even for 50kpm over the speed limit? Charge 9.75 approx. for each kilometer you were doing over the speed limit?

The fine is set by the Justice of the Peace at trial. He can set it above the total or below it. He could fine you $50 or $500, or anything close to that, really. The $9.75 is the statutory amount in the Highway Traffic Act but the Justice has the discretion to change it as he sees fit. If you have a good explanation, show remorse, etc., he'll probably lower it. The real cost will not so much be the cost of the ticket, but the insurance increase over the next three years. Do you have a G2 license? If so, the 50-over nets 6 demerit points which will result in an automatic 30-day license suspension.

They will not impound the car. You were not charged with stunt driving (section 172), you were only charged with speeding. You are not looking at even the minimum fine for stunt driving, which is $2000. You were charged under an entirely different section of the Highway Traffic Act. They aren't going to take your car. Any license suspension will be short-lived.

You've got a mandatory court appearance, so you may as well prepare thoroughly. The best resource on the internet for fighting traffic tickets is www.ticketcombat.com. Make a disclosure request, in particular asking for the officer's notes, the manual of the "speed-measuring device," meaning radar or the laser, and its service/repair records. That should get the process started. Make them work.

There is no need to be afraid of the trial proceedings. What you might want to do is drop in to the courthouse on Elgin Street at Laurier (yeah, I used to live in Ottawa) and see a few traffic ticket trials, if you have time. Take some notes, learn from the process and see what really works and what doesn't. It's free of charge, except for possible parking (FYI: 5-minute walk from there, park on MacDonald Street just off Somerset; the Green Hornets never seem to ticket people there, still think it's 3-hour parking). If they ask you why you're in the courtroom, you can just say you're observing. Just look for where they're holding the Provincial Offences trials.

Worse-case scenario, you have the option of plea-bargaining to a lesser charge on the day of trial; come in early and discuss your circumstances with the Prosecutor. Offering to plead guilty to 35-over or whatever will still result in an insurance increase, but nowhere near what 50-over would give you. Also it will save you from the possible license suspension, and lower the fine. In any case, do your research carefully. Any advice you get on the internet should always be backed up with careful verification; or as they say in the military, "don't go into battle with an unproven rifle."

Lawman wrote:The French Language Service Act (FLSA) requires all services and procedures to be in both languages. It applies to ALL communications. If the part of the certificate or notice of offence that the cop fills in is not in both languages it doesn't pass the smell test.

Unfortunately the courts in Ottawa have rejected that as a valid defence. Ticket only has to be completed in one language.

The courts in Ottawa are in Ontario. I realize they can reject the defence but the Supreme Court cannot. I doubt the court of appeal would either.

It's the law, whether they like it or not.

The cost of implementing a law is has no bearing on whether its a valid law. The government knew what it would cost when the enacted it.

If someone represents themselves, which is easy to do on such a simple and straightforward case, it doesn't cost much to fight to the SCC. If you lose, you only pay the ticket anyway. As this is a public interest matter, I don't think the court and order cost against you.

Do you have a case law link where the courts in Ottawa rejected this defence?

Lawman wrote:The courts in Ottawa are in Ontario.

Thanks for the geography lesson.

No, I don't have case links, it is not on CanLII. In fact, R. v Myers isn't even on CanLII. However, I've witnessed it as an observer, and I have a friend who is an Ottawa police officer and also had someone try the same defence. It did not work. FLSA does not even include police in the definition of "government agency." The only court that said the FLSA even applies to traffic infractions was an Ontario Court of Justice (R. v Myers), it went to appeal and Myers pleaded guilty, but that was relating to the validity of a unilingual road sign. I haven't found any precedent that says the courts should be ruling that the officer must speak both languages and that the ticket must be completed in both languages. If you have, can you post it here? That would prove very useful.

Now I have to ask, are you a lawyer? If not, have you used or witnessed the FLSA used to void a ticket on the grounds you're suggesting? I really would like to know as I'm sure the other members are interested also. You also said "it doesn't cost much to fight to the SCC." Can you share your experiences in dealing with the SCC?

Lawman wrote:If you lose, you only pay the ticket anyway.

This is why I cautioned her to do her own research. There's no risk for you or me or anyone else on this forum except her. Most 19-year-olds cannot afford to have their insurance premiums go up by $200 a month, pay a $500 fine and take a possible license suspension, and they also don't have the time on their hands to fight a traffic ticket all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Lawman wrote:The French Language Service Act (FLSA) requires all services and procedures to be in both languages. It applies to ALL communications. If the part of the certificate or notice of offence that the cop fills in is not in both languages it doesn't pass the smell test.

Municipalities must pass by-laws in order for the bilingual thing to apply on roads under their jurisdiction. However, many HTA offences involve points. When points are involved it is a provincial matter, and therefore, regardless of whether or not the municipality passed a bilingual by-law the bilingual requirement is still in effect because it applies to Provincial matters.

You're going to argue that when the cop talked to you at the vehicle he must do so in both languages because it a form of communication included in the procedure of commencing the proceeding which is also covered by the FLSA.

The FLSA requires ALL communications to be in both languages and it does not matter whether you even speak or understand both of the languages.

Therefore, when a cop stops a driver and speaks to them, they must speak to them in both languages unless the driver consents to allow the cop to only speak in one language.

The cop never sought your consent to only speak in one language. The fact that you never requested him to speak in both tongues does not mean you consented.

You have a witness with you in the car to prove he never spoke both languages.

You have a summons he filled out that proves it's not filled out in both languages.

You can ask the cop in court while under oath whether he speaks both languages. He may or may not. Even if he's bilingual it doesn't mean he spoke to you in both languages. But if he's not bilingual, its proof beyond any doubt that he did speak in both tongues.

You weren't even aware of this law till now, and until after you were stopped. But the cop was aware of the law before he even stopped you; and he violated the law.

Street name signs are also a communication; thus they must be in both languages if demerit points are involved. Points are involved here.

The street name sign where you were stopped is not in French, is it? It has to be.

The reason the certificates, notices and summons are preprinted in both languages is because the FLSA requires it. Look at the summons; you will see it's in both languages.

When a cop fills in the text, it too must be filled in using both languages or it's not in compliance with the FLSA.

If it's not in compliance with the FLSA, then it's not "regular on its face" for purpose of the Provincial Offence Act (POA).

Tickets not regular on their face cannot be processed.

The court can fix the summons or ticket at any time and make it in compliance with the FLSA, but the court cannot go back and speak to you in both languages because the stop has already taken place.

They can also not ignore the fact that the street sign is not in both languages.

Moreover, the judge must speak to you in both languages or they breach the FLSA, so be sure to point that out. Actually, don't point it out or you'll piss off the judge. But at least you're now aware of it if you get convicted. You can argue this point on appeal.

[/u].[/b]

Lawman, it's very interesting argument.

I speak a bit of French so if i am stopped for speeding in Toronto (or GTA) i will speak french to the officer and ask him to speak french to me, if he does not, will it be ground for dimissal in Toronto court?

In my view, the reason the cases go unreported is because itll turn the entire justice system upside down. Can you imagine how much it would cost the entire province to change every sign and street sign into a bilingual sign?

It will also require every cop to be bilingual.

The government doesn't want people to know about this law or argument, so they do not publicly report the case.

Lower courts are not require to follow decisions of other lower courts, but they are required to follow decisions of upper court due to the doctrine of of precedent, which is applied within the judicial hierarchy of a province and it would require clear and unequivocal statutory statement to the contrary to displace this rule.

R. v. Smith, (1988) 44 C.C.C. (3d) 385 (Ont. H.C.)

The argument I make has not be used in court as far as I know, I made up the argument based upon the case TC posted. I just expanded on it.

Clearly the certificates and summons are bilingual. They are bilingual for a reason, because the FLSA requires it to be. The FLSA applies because points are involved making it a provincial matter even if municipalities havent passed a by-law requiring it.

Therefore, my point is if the certification and summons is required to be in both languages than so does the text added by a cop. The officer must also speak both languages to the person unless the accused waives that right. In my view, because you don't request a cop to speak both languages doesn't mean you waive that right. A court could decide otherwise, though; and that is for a court to decide.

Ill agree, on a first impression, nothing really turns on whether or not the cop speaks both languages during a stop. However, The importance of the FLSA is evidenced by the fact it has its own Act. The government cannot thus say it applies to every other government agency, but not the MTO.

Therefore, everything does turn on the FLSA because the stop wasn't conducted properly and in compliance with the law. The summons is not filled out properly or in compliance with the law. The certificate is not filled out properly or in compliance with the law.

The court can fix certificates at any time, other than set fines, but the court cannot fix summonses.

Thus, in my view, the accused does not even have to attend court.

The court will clearly enforce the fine if one does not attend and you'll be in appeal mode. A motion could be brought forth immediately to have the summons tossed, though. This is another avenue that can be pursued. However, the cop could issue a new proper summons under Part III of the POA if it's within a six month period. So one would not want to do this unless six months has lapsed.

Since 2001, the Law Society of Upper Canada has imposed the following obligations on the legal profession: advise a client of the clients French language rights relating to the clients matter, including where applicable

Rule 1.03 b, c and d

...

(b) section 530 of the Criminal Code about an accuseds right to a trial before a court that speaks the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused,

(c) section 126 of the Courts of Justice Act that requires that a proceeding in which the client is a party be conducted as a bilingual (English and French) proceeding, and

(d) subsection 5(1) of the French Language Services Act for services in French from Ontario government agencies

The police are law enforcement officers, but they are not empowered to enforce every single law that exists. Under the Police Service Act, traffic laws are NOT a core law that is under police jurisdiction.

The MTO is an agency of the government. The MTO is empowered to enforce the HTA. The MTO has given the police express authority and jurisdiction under the HTA to help the MTO enforce our traffic laws.

Thus, the police are expressly empowered under the HTA to enforce it, therefore, the police are governed by the FLSA when enforcing the MTO legislation, which is an agency of the government subject to the FLSA.

However, the police are not the only people who are emplowered under the HTA to enforce it. MTO employees and other officers appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act are deemed to be constables, and all are subject to the FLSA while enforcing the HTA on behalf of the MTO.

It is illogical to suggest the MTO officers are subject to the FLSA when enforcing the HTA but police officers are not.

To avoid an absurd result and to give effect to a statute's purpose, statutes are read and construed as a whole. The rule regarding absurd results applies only if a statute is ambiguous.

If the statute is plain and clear on its face, it must be applied as written even if a court considers the result absurd. Even though plain construction of statute may lead to an absurd result, the Court cannot rewrite the statute or insert additional provisions in the statute.

At law, the Golden rule is a form of statutory interpretation that allows a judge to depart from a word's normal meaning in order to avoid an absurd result. Statutes must be construed to avoid absurd results, thus the police are subject to the FLSA when enforcing the HTA.

As previously mentioned, all services and procedures must be in both languages. The POA articulates that the service of documents, i.e., certificates, offence notices, and summons, is a procedure. The power to stop a motor vehicle, commercial vehicle or cyclist, is also a procedure, and this is evidenced by the fact those powers are found in PART XV of the HTA, which is titled; PROCEDURE, ARRESTS AND PENALTIES.

You will most likely not find a lower provincial court justice, who is appointed and paid by the province, to properly enforce our provincial laws. Justices are aware of the case TC posted but you never see them cite it in their decisions when others are fighting sign type tickets. They will cite all kinds of other case law to the determent of the accused, but they do not cite this one to help an accused. Justices often use unreported cases, too, so the unreported nature of this case means nothing. They know about the case and refuse to cite it, which proves they are deliberately acting in bad faith.

Think about the billions of dollars that the government has defrauded citizens out of in fines, court cost and victim surcharges when not one document was even correctly filled out, served or filed properly?

Think about how many people went to jail when not one document was even correctly filled out, served or filed properly?

Think about how many criminal lawyers we have in Ontario and not one of them properly represented their clients, yet they were still paid by either the client or legal aid, or in some cases by both?

Think about how many justices rubber stamped all of this fraud and wrongdoing?

Bear in mind, the case TC posted has nothing to do with the argument I make. That case dealt with a non-bilingual street notice sign that was not in compliance with MTO regulations. My argument is based upon court procedure documents being properly filled out and filed in accordance with the FLSA; the FLSA that all politicians, courts and justices are well aware of.

Summons in Part I of the POA are governed by POA regulations; and while the summons is in compliance with the regulation, the regulation is not in compliance with the FLSA.

The prescribed forms for summons under s. 22, Part III of the POA are to be in compliance with the rules of court, but the rules of court are not in compliance with the FLSA; and neither is the fault of citizens and the accused. Its the fault of government.

The fact that someone mightve signed the certificate of offence when it was issued to them does not validate the invaild documents. A person is not required to sign. And those that did sign are not afforded less protection of the law than those who did not sign.

So now think about how many people work in the legal community, politicians, Attorney Generals, lawyers, cops, crown attorneys, justices?

Think about how much money we pay them in salary each year; and not one of them has a clue of what they are doing.

Or do they?

The FLSA was enacted in 1990. That's 19 years ago. We've had the NDP, Tories and Liberals in power during those 19 years.

What has anyone employed in the legal filed or government done to correct this massive problem?

Nothing!

They had a duty to do more, and in 19 years no reasonable measures and plans for compliance with this Act have been taken or made.

The Lieutenant Governor in Council could've also made a regulation exempting the MTO due to the cost the province would incur implementing the FLSA for MTO purposes.

They did not do so.

Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the Minister responsible for Francophone Affairs could've made a regulation exempting the MTO for the better administration of the Act and Province.

They did not do so.

Instead they decided to conspire to continue ripping off and falsely imprisoning citizens in violation of the law; and to deliberately un-report any successful FLSA case that was detrimental to the government.

Nevertheless, what the Supreme Court says is what matters. If you want to study law, study what they say, not what lower courts say. Lower courts, including the court of appeal, have decisions overturned all the time. If you only study what lower courts say, and believe what they say, you might find out later that their decision was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, so what you thought was the correct law, based upon what the lower court said, is in fact not correct at all.

My argument was used in one SCC case. It's a landmark ruling of the court that applies across Canada in Labour Law. In fact, since Canada is a common law nation it applies world wide; that is with other common law nations.

Any citizen can intervene on any case and receive standing in the case if the court agrees. When there is a public interest at stake the court will also not order costs against you if you lose.

This case is of a public interest, thus if lost at the lower levels and appealed to the supreme court, and lost there, I don't see the court ordering costs. But that's for the court to decide.

HTA

Appointment of officers for carrying out provisions of Act

223. (1) The Minister may appoint one or more persons on the staff of the Ministry or any other ministry of the Government of Ontario as an officer or officers for the purpose of carrying out all or any of the provisions of this Act, and any person so appointed has authority to act as a constable throughout Ontario for the purpose.

Power of officer to examine commercial vehicles

216.1 (1) Any officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act may, at any time, examine any commercial vehicle and its contents and equipment for the purpose of ascertaining whether this Act, the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act or the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act, or the regulations under any of them, are being complied with, and the driver, operator or other person in control of the vehicle shall assist in the examination.

Power to stop commercial vehicles

(2) Any officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act may, for the purpose of an examination under subsection (1), direct, by signals or otherwise, the driver of any commercial vehicle driven on a highway to stop, and the driver, upon being so directed, shall stop the vehicle.

Power of police officer to stop vehicle

216. (1) A police officer, in the lawful execution of his or her duties and responsibilities, may require the driver of a motor vehicle to stop and the driver of a motor vehicle, when signalled or requested to stop by a police officer who is readily identifiable as such, shall immediately come to a safe stop.

Arrest powers

Assisting officers

217. (1) Every person called upon to assist a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act in the arrest of a person suspected of having committed any offence mentioned in subsection (2) may assist if he or she knows that the person calling on him or her for assistance is a police officer or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act, and does not know that there are no reasonable grounds for the suspicion.

Cyclist to identify self

218. (1) A police officer who finds any person contravening this Act or any municipal by-law regulating traffic while in charge of a bicycle may require that person to stop and to provide identification of himself or herself. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 218 (1).

Idem

(2) Every person who is required to stop, by a police officer acting under subsection (1), shall stop and identify himself or herself to the police officer.

FLSA

Definitions

1. In this Act,

(a) a ministry of the Government of Ontario, except that a psychiatric facility, residential facility or college of applied arts and technology that is administered by a ministry is not included unless it is designated as a public service agency by the regulations,

Provision of services in French

2. The Government of Ontario shall ensure that services are provided in French in accordance with this Act.