OHTA.ca

Hello Members,

Quick info.

I drove through a RIDE program and the officer began asking questions that I found not relevant to the RIDE program mandate. He began asking me what I did for a living, where I lived after I had told him I had nothing to drink and I found those questions invasive and would not answer them. The officer went absolutely berserk telling me he would "throw the book at me, and give me every DUI test under the sun". The officer had me step out of the vehicle and his partner walked over with a few taunts of his own. I asked both of them why were they interrogating me?

So the officer tells me I must take the breath test, I accepted since I did not want this to escalate into a disaster. He then pats me down and tosses me into the back of the cruiser. Low and behold I blow 0.000. The officer then tells me he will check for any outstanding warrants. He comes back telling me the MTO inquiry showed my license was not valid. NOT A SUSPENSION just not valid. He hands me back my license and his partner tells me that unless I now beg them they will tow my car 20 meters over to a parking lot and the bill will be $400. He eventually let me drive the vehicle over to the parking lot since it was literally 20meters from the check. I call someone to come pick up and drive my car.

I plan on defending myself in this case. The case I am referencing will be

R. v. Ladouceur [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257: Random routine traffic checks

The majority of judges ruled that random checks are justified but they specifically wrote that the questioning must be related to the offense.

"Once stopped the only questions that may justifiably be asked are those related to driving offences. Any further, more intrusive procedures could only be undertaken based upon reasonable and probable grounds. Where a stop is found to be unlawful, the evidence from the stop could well be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter."

My argument is that essentially the officers questioning had nothing to do with a RIDE or spot check mandate or DRIVING in general, and had I allowed my privacy to be violated the officer would never have escalated the situation. Basically the officer was no longer acting in a professional manner or with any "legitimate motive" but purely out to nail me with anything. Thereby any evidence obtained by the officer should be dismissed along with the case.

I would like critical analysis of my defense and if I should be looking at anything else to defend myself with. I am NOT attempting to challenge the RIDE program itself, merely the procedure that the officer had used.

Thank you forum.

JimmyTheGent

The questions asked are essentially irrelevant to the offence you are charged with. The officer had the authority at the RIDE stop to demand your licence and then check its validity. This is what he did, albiet there was a lot more that went on, but non of that negated his right to check your licence status. Further, the evidence of your licence status was not the result of any improper questioning, so it would not be excluded under 24(2).

For these reasons Ladouceur will not be of any assistance to you.

Ladouceur is if they started questioning you about things like drug possession, weapons, etc. The court ruled that the questions must be related to "driving offences," which covers licence validity. Driving with an invalid licence, by definition, is a driving offence. Find out why your licence is invalid first, though.

My license was suspended about 2 years prior for about a month due to too many demerit points(they counted US tickets). However once I received the letter in the mail stating my driving privileges have been reinstated, I thought nothing of it.

So there is basically nothing I can do here?

The letter would have also said you need to go into a MTO off and pay the re-instatment fee on the DL. A lot of people get caught like this. Get a DL suspension, pay the fine or wait the time and think that their DL is good to go. When in fact you need to go get it re-instated.

GS

Well, I guess this just proves the complete and utter scam the driver licensing system has become. They gave legal monopolies to drivetest centres + licensing centers and essentially milk the public for every dime possible. Its unfortunate that government programs are being judged on their intent versus their actual results. I am glad I am leaving this hellish province for good this year.

JimmyTheGent wrote:So there is basically nothing I can do here?

Driving with an invalid licence is definitely better than a suspended one. I'm not sure that you could plea-bargain to a lesser offence (worth a shot), but you could try to get a reduced fine by talking to the Prosecutor.

Once again, according to Black's law dictionary a driver's license is only required if you engage in commerce.

Not engaging in commerce should mean not requiring a license.

Kawja wrote:Once again, according to Black's law dictionary a driver's license is only required if you engage in commerce.

Not engaging in commerce should mean not requiring a license.

http://thelawdictionary.org/driver/

As the OP has not been charged with an offence under the "Blacks Law Dictionary", but rather under the HTA, he would be well advised to seek professional advice/representation in dealing with this matter rather than listening to those that fall into the Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants category.

JimmyTheGent wrote:Well, I guess this just proves the complete and utter scam the driver licensing system has become. They gave legal monopolies to drivetest centres + licensing centers and essentially milk the public for every dime possible. Its unfortunate that government programs are being judged on their intent versus their actual results. I am glad I am leaving this hellish province for good this year.

You must remember that driving in Ontario is a privilege not a right.

JimmyTheGent wrote:Well, I guess this just proves the complete and utter scam the driver licensing system has become. They gave legal monopolies to drivetest centres + licensing centers and essentially milk the public for every dime possible. Its unfortunate that government programs are being judged on their intent versus their actual results. I am glad I am leaving this hellish province for good this year.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Mugwug wrote:As the OP has not been charged with an offence under the "Blacks Law Dictionary", but rather under the HTA

Well stated...

Mugwug wrote:Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants category.

Aka, "Freemen" or "Sovereign Citizens."