OHTA.ca

On June 27, new penalties take effect in Saskatchewan for traffic offences, including driving while impaired, speeding/racing and talking on the cellphone. Here they are:

First offence: Ticket.

Second offence within a year: Immediate, 7-day impoundment of the vehicle at the roadside.

And you thought Ontario's $1000 fine was tough...

Speeding 50 km/h or more over the limit: Immediate, 7-day impoundment of the vehicle

(BTW the highway speed limit in SK is 110 km/h.)

Racing another vehicle: Immediate, 30-day impoundment of the vehicle

Failing to stop for police: Immediate, 7-day impoundment of the vehicle

Any Criminal Code offence that is also an offence under the Saskatchewan Traffic Safety Act (e.g. dangerous driving): Immediate 30-day impoundment of the vehicle

The limit for immediate roadside penalties is 0.04 BAC and not 0.05 or 0.08 like in other provinces.

First Offence for 0.04+: Immediate 3 day licence suspension.

Second Offence for 0.04+: Immediate 30 day licence suspension + 7 day vehicle impoundment

Third+ Offence for 0.04+: Immediate 90 day licence suspension + 14 day vehicle impoundment + 1 yr ignition interlock

Conviction for Criminal Code impaired driving: Permanent ignition interlock

Conviction for 0.08-0.15 BAC where injury or death results: $1250 - $2500 fine in addition to other penalties

Conviction for 0.16 or more BAC where injury/death results: $2250 - $2500 fine in addition to other penalties

I work on the enforcement side of things and even I find these seizures troubling. I do not believe a persons vehicle should be seized prior to any finding of guilt. If you are convicted at trial and the Court orders an impoundment, so be it. But until that happens, the property should remain with the defendant. The H.T.A. already provided police with means to seize and hold onto a vehicle for serious offences, but it allowed defendants to have an immediate hearing as well (much like a bail hearing for someone held in custody). The new laws take discretion away from police (they shall seize versus can seize) and prevent people from appealing even in cases of outright errors or abuse.

Even license suspensions are problematic for me. Is it really likely that someone whos just been stopped by police for speeding will immediately do so again? The old 12 hour suspensions for intoxicated drivers made sense. They realistically posed a risk to other motorist so keeping their license until they sobered up was in the public interest. When we start holding onto licenses for 3, 7 and 30 days I dont think you can argue its for safety anymore. Its now a punishment being doled out without any supporting conviction.

When I think of all the hoops I need to jump through to obtain information in criminal investigations and the close scrutiny it will receive in Court, Im flabbergasted that our Courts seem to support such significant powers for what are relatively minor offences by comparison.

Sorry, end of rant.

Stanton wrote:I work on the enforcement side of things and even I find these seizures troubling. I do not believe a persons vehicle should be seized prior to any finding of guilt. If you are convicted at trial and the Court orders an impoundment, so be it. But until that happens, the property should remain with the defendant. The H.T.A. already provided police with means to seize and hold onto a vehicle for serious offences, but it allowed defendants to have an immediate hearing as well (much like a bail hearing for someone held in custody). The new laws take discretion away from police (they shall seize versus can seize) and prevent people from appealing even in cases of outright errors or abuse.

No argument from me. I railed against the whole thing when Ontario first started the 7-day impoundment for speeding 50 km/h over the limit plus other offences, I still don't agree with it... but if you're going to be in SK you should be forewarned about the penalties. If you are doing things like racing a vehicle, you should be arrested. The Criminal Code was the better way of dealing with this.

I personally think that unless the condition would continue to be unsafe after the traffic stop (e.g. driver is impaired, vehicle is unsafe or uninsured, or the driver is unlicenced/suspended/disqualified), there is no reason for a roadside licence suspension or vehicle seizure... maybe if the driver is charged with dangerous driving/fleeing police/etc. The driver's behaviour is unlikely to continue. 12 or 24 hour roadside suspension for drunk driving is ok, but I agree with you that the second we have escalating penalties, you're into the territory of "punishment without conviction."

Anyway... BC just did the right thing by raising some of its speed limits to 120 km/h. They also are now strengthening the "keep right except to pass" law. Oh, and much like their neighbouring US state Washington, they now have a law that REQUIRES a driver on a single-lane highway to pull over at the earliest opportunity if five or more vehicles are stacked up behind them.