In my view, this is an absolute liability offence. Courts have determined offences employing the "no person shall" or "every driver shall" formulation are interpreted as absolute liability offences.
R. v. Hickey (1976), 13 O.R. (2d) 228. (speeding) R. v. Kurtzman (1991), 66 C.C.C. (3d) 161 at 172 (Ont. C.A.)-(failing to stop at a red light) and London (City) v. Polewsky (2005), 202 C.C.C. (3d) 257 (Ont. C.A. )-(speeding).
Strict liability offence at times employ the "no person shall" term, too, but strict liability offences provide a defence of due diligence while absolute liability offences impose punishment despite any defence of the accused. Therefore, as s. 172.1(3) articulates the words "is guilty," it confirms this is an absolute liability.
This offence contains a possible term of imprisonment, thus, the provision is unconstitutional as it violates s. 7 of the Charter and cannot be justified under s. 1, therefore it's unenforcable and of no force and effect pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.
B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486
"A law that has the potential to convict a person who has not really done anything wrong offends the principles of fundamental justice and, if imprisonment is available as a penalty, such a law then violates a person's right to liberty under s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1985/1 ... 2-486.html A judge could strike down the term of imprisonment and the remaining provision becomes valid and enforceable.
R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154
http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1991/1 ... 3-154.html The fine is from $500 to $2,000. A vehicle impoundment does not apply at any time, but the imposition of imprisonment is grossly disproportionate to the offence committed, thus an accused has a compelling claim under s. 12 of the Charter.
In any event, from what you describe regarding your bike; you're totally legal. The provisons that apply to you are 172.1(2)(a)(b) and (c). You do not have to meet each and every section and subsection in 172.1.
Bear in mind "some" cops lie. If he charged you despite it being disconnected, it would be your word against his in court.
A motorcycle is defined as a motor vehicle under the HTA.
"motor vehicle" includes an automobile, motorcycle, …
Nitrous oxide fuel systems prohibited
172.1 (1) No person shall drive or permit to be driven on a highway a motor vehicle manufactured or modified after its manufacture such that nitrous oxide may be delivered into the fuel mixture unless,
(a) the part of the fuel system that may connect to a canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide can be clearly seen by looking at the interior or exterior of the motor vehicle;
(b) there is no canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel connected to that part; and
(c) if the part of the fuel system that may connect to a canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide is located inside the passenger compartment, there is no canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide in the passenger compartment. 2007, c. 13, s. 22.
Same
(2) No person shall drive or permit to be driven on a highway a motor vehicle manufactured or modified after its manufacture such that nitrous oxide may be delivered into the fuel mixture unless,
(a) the part of the fuel system that may connect to a canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide is completely disconnected from the part of the system that connects to the engine;
(b) the disconnection can be clearly seen by looking at the interior or exterior of the motor vehicle; and
(c) the disconnected parts cannot be reconnected from inside the passenger compartment. 2007, c. 13, s. 22.
Offence
(3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. 2007, c. 13, s. 22.