Good news - Stunt driving +50km/hour

[Beancounter]

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2254116
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Presented by

Second judge rules Ontario's stunt driving law unconstitutional

Shannon Kari, National Post

David Booth/National Post Files
TORONTO -- A second judge in Ontario has ruled that the province's stunt driving law is unconstitutional, which could increase the pressure on police to stop laying the charge until the issue is decided by a higher court.
Justice Peter West, a provincial court judge in Newmarket, found that a potential penalty of up to six months in jail violates the Charter of Rights because the law does not permit an accused person to put forward any defence.
"There is no air of reality to the Crown's submissions that a defendant charged with stunt driving has an available defence of due diligence," wrote Judge West, in a ruling released Nov. 19.
As a result, he dismissed stunt driving charges against Alexandra Drutz, who was 18 when she clocked at 157 km/h while driving her parent's car in March 2008 on Highway 407, just north of Toronto.
Stunt driving is defined as being more than 50 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, which is the same type of "absolute liability" offence as speeding infractions in the Highway Traffic Act, said Judge West. "Calling the conduct stunt driving does not change its characterization - it is still a speeding offence albeit by a different name," he stated.
An absolute liability offence means someone may not argue they took precautions and did not realize how fast they were driving. More than 20 years ago the Supreme Court of Canada stated that potential jail terms for offences that do not permit a defence breaches the Charter.
The ruling by Judge West comes just weeks after a provincial court judge in eastern Ontario came to the same conclusion and overturned the conviction of a 62-year-old grandmother charged with stunt driving.
The Ontario Provincial Police stated at the time that it would continue to lay charges under the stunt driving laws. The province also appealed that decision. It is scheduled to be heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal in about two months from now.
The two court rulings are binding on Justices of Peace in Ontario, who preside over many Highway Traffic Act trials.
Until there is a ruling on the stunt driving laws from the Ontario Court of Appeal, police should take a "time out" from laying these charges, said Enzo Rondinelli, a Toronto lawyer who along with Paul Cooper represented Ms. Drutz.
"The current score in provincial court is 2-0 in favour of a finding of constitutional invalidity," noted Mr. Rondinelli. "There are other sections under the Highway Traffic Act for police to deal with speeders," he added.
More than 10,000 people have been charged under the stunt driving provisions in Ontario since they were introduced in 2007 by then-attorney-general Michael Bryant.
Judge West noted in his ruling that the stunt driving provisions were passed unanimously by the Ontario legislature in what was billed as a law targeting street racing. The specific "regulations" however, which defined speeding as stunt driving and have now been found to be unconstitutional, were drawn up at a later date by the Ontario government.

© 2009 The National Post Company. All rights reserved. Unauthorized distribution, transmission or republication strictly prohibited.

[Coopers_Dad]

someone may not argue they took precautions and did not realize how fast they were driving.

When has that ever worked when you get caught at 10 over???

There is no justification ever for driving that fast it's as simple as that. It's amazing how many times the rule of law in this country can be let down by the courts.

[sik300srt8]

everyone should appeal

[CDNChargerRT]

50 km/h has always been in the law books (automatic lose of license), the new law just allowed bigger fines and lose of car for a week. I don't see anything wrong with this law, no need to be doing 50 km/h over!!

[Mymopar]

50 km/h has always been in the law books (automatic lose of license), the new law just allowed bigger fines and lose of car for a week. I don't see anything wrong with this law, no need to be doing 50 km/h over!!

50 km/h isn't that like 8 American MPH?

Excuse me officer, I'm sorry I was trying to do the exchange rate for km/h vs. mph and I thought it was like currency. I read it was 5:1, no that isn't right? Well where in the law does it say I can't do my own conversion, lol.

Speeding is speeding and I can see where this is going. I think it was more aimed at the fact that the cops were writing out stunt driving tickets when they could/should have been regular speeding tickets.

[FLEX]

I don't think anyone is in favor of light penalties for people doing 50km/h or more above the speed limit.

The unconstitutional argument is more directed at the roadside suspension and seizure portion of the law.

The punishment is being handed out before there is a conviction in a court of law. And that's wrong.

-=FLEX=-

[sik300srt8]

flex is right....

[oakcharger]

I don't think anyone is in favor of light penalties for people doing 50km/h or more above the speed limit.

The unconstitutional argument is more directed at the roadside suspension and seizure portion of the law.

The punishment is being handed out before there is a conviction in a court of law. And that's wrong.

-=FLEX=-

X2 i just heard this too and hell yeah thats not right at all !!!!!

[CDNChargerRT]

I don't think anyone is in favor of light penalties for people doing 50 km/h or more above the speed limit.

The unconstitutional argument is more directed at the roadside suspension and seizure portion of the law.

The punishment is being handed out before there is a conviction in a court of law. And that's wrong.

-=FLEX=-

I see no issue with taking someone's license and car right then and there. And the suspension portion is not new. What I don't agree with is the labeling. When the law first came out they would call you a street racer, even if it was only you on a deserted highway. So, now they call it stunt driving! Well, I don't agree there either. It is the now the officers interpretation. As for punishment being handed out before there is a conviction, look at the impaired law. You blow over, .05 and you get a three day suspension on the spot. Any different?

[FLEX]

No different Chris, and I don't agree with it either.

But I also know that I don't drink and drive and I don't go more than 50 over.

-FLEX-

Posted via LXFMobile

[CDNChargerRT]

No different Chris, and I don't agree with it either.

But I also know that I don't drink and drive and I don't go more than 50 over.

-FLEX-

Posted via LXFMobile

True, so I say to those that wanna play with their life and the lives of other motorists. Be warned!!

[hemicanucksfan]

i totally agree with you chris. it's pretty tough to be "accidentally" be going 50 km/h over the limit. you know you're going WAY too fast so you might as well take the punishment you deserve.

[Fargo59]

i dont agree with the on the spot conviction of the stunting charge, nor the vagueness of the "stunting" charge in its definition. as it is referred here, 50km/h over, yes it requires punishment, but not an on site conviction.

[wolfmann21]

i dont think anyone should be going 200 in an 80, or whatever, and NOT be punished for it.ive already read/heard way to many stories about some idiot hitting someone and killing them cuz they wanted to drive like a lunatic.if i had a kid and that ever happened to me, im going to jail.i'll kill someone.

while it DOES go against the premise of innocent until proven guilty, i dont see how anyone can say they can prove they WERE'NT going more than 50 over, they were just being deprived of the chance to do so in a court of law.its pretty black and white, either you did or you didnt.and if you were that stupid, i think you should have to pay for it.and frankly, losing your car for a while is better than someone losing their life.

but thats just me.'nuff said

[wolfmann21]

It is just more Nanny laws by this out of control liberty killing Ontario government. Its 30 MPH/50 KPH. Kick it down to pass a few cars in an 80KPH/50MPH zone and by the time you pull back in your a stunt driver. BS. Every law these Liberals have brought in make criminals of the average joe. Next is the HST.. I wish someone would assassinate McGinty and his crew. Id throw a party in celebration.

i think ur going a little overboard, and in the interest of not turning this into an arguement, i wont post on this thread after this....

but A - you shouldnt be passing "a few cars" all at once anyways, leaving aside the fact that if ur passing someone already doing the limit, then ur speeding right off the bat.so ur doing, what, 100 to pass the dude doing 80, u take too long to pull back in cuz u wanna pass 3 guys in a row, u run out of zone, and now ur doing 100 in a 30...and when you get pulled over, ur gonna argue with the cop that you think you shouldnt be ticketed for that?

and B - i realize we all talk **** and like to exaggerate to drive a point home, but talking about assassinating a bunch of ppl because you dont like them is quite frankly untasteful to say the least.