OHTA.ca

My daughter who resides in Kingston, ON recently had her car stolen. The suspect was caught driving the car and charged. The police impounded her car. Now they are telling her that in order for her to retrieve her vehicle, she must pay the towing cost and the cost of the impound. She can then try to claim restitution from the person who stole her car.

Is this true? If so, why should she be made to pay impound and towing cost? Isn't she the victim here? To me this is victimizing her twice. As a single mother she cannot afford these costs. Also, if she leaves her car at the impound lot, will further costs ensue?

I just addressed this issue the other day.

The impound facility is right now in possession of stolen property. That's a crime under the Criminal Code.

They, as well as the police, know who this stolen property belongs too. They cannot force her to pay and must return it to its rightful owner for free.

If he refuses to release the car for free, you can have the impound facility owners criminal charged.

If she refuses to pay him he can sell her car.

Life doesn't work life that. Neither does the law.

If she going to sue, she should sue the Province.

Someone may want to contact a lawyer, or at least a paralegal.......try the form below

If it were me, I would advise the impound facility owner to return my property for free immediately and if he refuses to I would place him under arrest for possession of stolen property, mischief and fraud or false pretences.

If I were to sue, I would sue the Provincial Liberal Party, not the Crown in Right of Ontario. Or maybe both.

The Liberal Party has a majority government and thats how this unconstitutional law was passed. They already know, or ought to known the law is bogus, but the majority Liberal government enacted it anyway.

If the person who stole the car has a zero net worth, and you sue them, you're going to get zero. That's another reason why this law is so stupid.

A company in possession of stolen property due to the error of the government would have the defence of "officially induced error" and the accused is thus entitled to a stay of proceedings rather than an acquittal.

But once the case hit the courts, the court is obligated by law to strike the law down, as it is unconstitutional.