Options for responding to Manitoba traffic tickets / alleged offenses

Category: Justice

  • Options for responding to Manitoba traffic tickets / alleged offenses

    The POC / Traffic “court” reopened on July 6, 2020 for dispute hearings and payments only. It had closed temporarily due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

    Here is detailed info about your options if you received a ticket / alleged traffic offense in Manitoba. You must respond within the response period shown on your ticket or a default conviction can be entered along with a $50 penalty.

    If you wish you can exercise your right to dispute the offence (i.e plead not guilty, get a disclosure package, communicate with the Crown attorney and if needed have a trial etc …), admit the offence, or seek a reduction. You have a few options to do so which are listed below.

    If you dispute, you can change your mind later and change your option or plea. Most are still offered or can get a reduction and time to pay. After filing to dispute some tickets have been dismissed when reasonable reason given. This more likely with backlog for hearings / trials.

    You can also authorize a representative to handle the matter on your behalf.

    If you choose one of the retired cops / traffic ticket “experts” be aware they are often fine with not telling you much of this and collecting from you half of what you “save” when they request and if they get dismissal or reduction.

    If you can’t get time off during the day or can’t afford to you can request night court and you can also request a hearing in french.

    Options:

    1) Go in person to 373 Broadway in Winnipeg or check with a regional court:
    https://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/tickets/contact.html

    2) Phone the court: 204-945-3156 in Winnipeg or toll free at 1-800-282-8069 (ext.3156). Have the offense / ticket number ready.

    3) Complete the form linked in this post or here:
    https://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/tickets/pubs/poaform.pdf

    One member said when they tried to attach a copy of their d/l photo, the whole form would freeze. If so send the photo seperately.
    Mail, fax or drop off at:
    100 – 373 Broadway
    Winnipeg MB R3C 4S4
    Fax: 204-948-2023
    or check with a regional court (see link above)

    Or Email the form to POC@gov.mb.ca

    Warning email is not secure and there has been cases where they have send disclosure package by email last minute with little time to prepare your defense and requests for dismissing or adjournment denied.

    Ask for confirmation that they have received the form.

    After your form processed you should be sent a letter with hearing date. After this you can contact the court to get name of the crown attorney or articling student assigned to your case and phone number. You can then call or email them (first name.lastname@gov.mb.ca) if you need to request adjournment for more time to prepare or …

    A disclosure package should he sent to you at least 7 days before your trial but you maybe able to request it earlier.

    You have the option to request the operator or officer be present to question (The crown can be asked to call them as their witness so you can cross examine or you cam subpoena them). You must appear before a Justice to request this but should not need to go into detail about your defense.

    The Guide for self represented Defendants via link below and on the MB Courts website provides general information about the court process for tickets. This guide is not meant to be used as legal advice. If you have any legal questions, contact a lawyer.

    General info about tickets
    https://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/tickets/

    Disputing
    https://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/tickets/dispute.html

    More on this and related at www.wiseupwinnipeg.com and WiseUpWinnipeg under Announcements, Files, Discussions etc…

    The “New Plea Process” page and post has more details on when and why this process changed (their claimed reasons and what their real intentions appeared to be), the erosions of the accused rights, their ability to know about and exercise what rights are left and what can be done about these injustices.

    More info and some history about the process change here

    New Plea Process

  • WPS pension changes and off topic but important comment and response

    Nov 6 2019 – Concerned Citizens of Winnipeg and Manitoba

    Find comment below from article and post about City of Winnipeg plans to change the police pension bylaw to make the pension more sustainable using the new Provincial public sector pension and benefits legislation. Mainly change City / taxpayers contributions from 18% to match employee contributions of 8%, require 20 years service and age 60 for full pension and remove pensionable overtime.

    For more info, comments and discussion see

    —

    “I would not mind nearly as much if:

    -They weren’t committing fraud with drawings in court.
    -They were on top of crime instead of sleeping in cars with photo radar.
    -They were properly testing their devices and ACTUALLY only interested in ticketing bad or dangerous drivers.
    -They would post people randomly in high theft areas, like grocery stores, liquor marts, etc instead of on busses and corners looking for phones (but even that is acceptable to me if it’s about safety and not revenue).”

    —
    Response

    , the hand written Designated Construction Zone diagrams, sleeping in photo enforcement vehicles is WPS’s for profit “partner” Conduent (formely Xerox / Lockheed Martin / ACS) but they claim to get direction from WPS on where to “enforce”.

    The breaches of charter, due process and other legal rights plus ignoring of codes of conduct, professional standards, sworn oaths, ethics etc… when issuing “violations” during pretrial and in Provincial “Offenses” ‘court” aka SCC / Traffic or kangaroo court” by the Crown, JJP’s, operators and officers is the result of the past Selinger led SpeNDP, current Pallister led PC governments, Katz and Bowman led City and Administrations, WPS Chiefs McCaskill, Clunnis and Smyth, the Police Boards plus the Judiciary (Chief Justices) choosing the 50% Province, 25% City and 25% WPS / Conduent shares / cuts in traffic “safety” revenue over proper engineering, safety, public trust, respect, confidence and econmic growth / legit tax revenue.

    This abuse, extortion or government sanctioned taxation as fines involves over $70,000,000 per year taken from mostly safety conscious drivers and vehicle owners.

    A similar sanctioned racket or flawed and biased “enforcement” revenue stream happening with for profit partner G4S and the Winnipeg parking “authority” which involves over $40,000,000 per year.

    Combined this equates to over $450,000,000 per year or 5,000,000,000 since 2003 (when the priority became more about revenue) taken from the economy and economic growth with velocity of money.

    Low income individuals and families hit the hardest with the fine option taken away to pay with community service and MPI in on the racket with officer issued “offenses” and licenses and insurance penalties plus suspension of license or preventing renewal till payment

  • Response to ForASaferWinnipeg and CTV News coverage of more meth violence

    WPS Chief Danny Smyth said police doing foot patrols in Downtown Winnipeg skywalks are seizing more weapons – CTV News

    —

    Important call to all WiseUpWinnipeg members and the general public viewing that care about policing in Winnipeg and the high rate of serious crimes which are rising in Winnipeg while they drop in almost all of Canada.

    The Winnipeg Police Association run Facebook Page ForASaferWinnipeg is often posting about the issues in Winnipeg and WPS Chief Smyth like here is commenting about them but they are not reminded enough of how serious crime was allowed to get so bad in Winnipeg while it controlled in other jurisdictions with similar demographics, population, funding, less police officers and staff per capita and other factors.

    Has the meth crisis been made worse by the opioid epidemic which was also allowed to grow and get worse as a result of poor regulation, decision making and influence at the federal, provincial and municipal levels? When the restrictions on OxyContin and other opioids finally started being enforced and created it caused many addicts, dealers and organized crime to turn to more deadly fentanyl and dangerous Meth. Much of this was out of the hands of WPS but there was things they could have done and can do to try and reign it in while the other levels start taking for actions.

    Please see this post and my response. If you agree interact with it and add your own comments. Once this done more often and on more places those in authority will not be able to mislead the public.

    https://www.facebook.com/ForASaferWinnipeg/posts/401520900684193

    Officers seizing more weapons in Downtown Winnipeg skywalks due to meth: police chief
    Monday, March 11, 2019 5:24PM CST – Jeff Keele, Political Reporter – @jeffkeelectv

    —

    The meth crisis, the violence and serious crime associated with it is very concerning

    Would it have helped if there wasn’t years of diverting officers from community support and other important units to do traffic enforcement or volunteer to work pensionable OT to do traffic enforcement? Aka revenue collection to offset 85% of total police budget (Over $233 Million) going to salaries, pension contributions and other benefits. The over-staffing and inefficiency well documented in many FIPPA request results and Ombudsman complaints, in the 64 page detailed report from Fraser Institute in 2014 and annual compensation disclosure reports.

    These not only ignored but matters only got worse until the Province put pressure on the City and WPS in the last two years to be more fiscally responsible and restore spending to sustainable levels after years of double digit budget increases, pension bailouts, many CBA’s that didn’t consider what the City and Taxpayers could afford. False and misleading statements from the WPA and WPS leaders with the facts exposed via FIPPA requests and Ombudsman complaints. The response from WPS and the Police Board was lay off a few officers that were part of two serious crime units that were partnering with RCMP resources and had many successes tackling serious and organized crime which resulted in these being shutdown.

    It especially concerning that many officers directed to or choosing to aggressively enforce in locations with known, created and often dangerous traffic engineering deficiencies like short 4 second amber times in medium and high speed intersections with no Advanced Warning Flashers causing large dilemma zone and high number of rear end and related collisions. Missing, removed or obscured signage including dual signage on large or divided roads for speed limits, speed reductions and photo enforcement ahead signs on the blvd. Artificially reduced speed limits like Grant Ave, Kenaston, Panet Rd and others where were lowered or left lower against recommendations from City engineers and PWD Directors, national standards for safety and many calls from WiseUpWinnipeg and other public advocacy groups to correct.

    It also very concerning that Project Drive exposed via FIPPA results where officers diverted or asked to work pensionable OT on traffic duty with net loss to the public (over $1 Million in fines issues but over $1 Million in OT) plus more when considering pensionable OT doing traffic duty, for other units left short staffed after diverting and in traffic court.

    Then $.5 Million diverted to WPS from MPI overcharges in 2016-17 instead of refunding as required by the MPI act and mandate as part of the MPI, CoW, WPS and CAA Pilot “Safety Program” to do “enhanced enforcement” in Winnipeg’s most dangerous intersections like Bishop Grandin and McGillvary that diverted officers from community support and other important units to do traffic enforcement or volunteer to work pensionable OT to do traffic enforcement. Photos of WPS marked and unmarked cars parked unlawfully and unsafely on the meridian, crosswalk, meridian, bus lane, merge or exit lanes.

    The lighted board warning of dangerous intersections again only up for a couple weeks but enhanced enforcement went on for over a year until the FIPPA results exposed what the real priority was. Senior WPS John Burchill saying “the funds needed to counter the City trying to reduce our budget” (actually trying to reign in out of control spending) “and we hope the “data” will allow more funding in the future”. MPI program coordinator saying there wasn’t enough violations issued for the investment. In other words not enough demerit related revenue to even make up for the investment never mind the expected surplus.

    There is many more examples well documented and raised to the attention of those in authority at WPS, the City and Province. Who is influencing the decision makers that have the authority a responsibility to correct these serious issues?

    More here https://yaworski.net/2016/09/10/mpic-diverting-millions-to-police-for-safety-initiatives-most-of-which-are-a-waste-and-actually-putting-the-public-at-risk/
    , www.wiseupwinnipeg.com and www.facebook.com/Groups/WiseUpWinnipeg

    —

    Post on WiseUpWinnipeg
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/WiseUpWinnipeg/permalink/10155742518501222/

    Post on ForASaferWinnipeg – WPA run page
    https://www.facebook.com/ForASaferWinnipeg/posts/401520900684193

    —

    Comments:

    …

    —

    I never mentioned photo enforcement operators as I was not talking about them. They don’t divert them, that is all they do 365 days a year. They have diverted police officers as I mentioned. There is up to 55,000 alleged traffic offenses issued by wps police officers per year and this has been trending up yet they claim enforcement reduces violations. The other 150,000 per year and trending up is from pe.

    I never said this was the cause of the meth crisis I asked it would have helped if these officers were not diverted.

    It is very concerning that there has been 911 calls for intruder or b&e and they told no officers available and it took up 36 hrs for response and even then often inadequate investigation. Yet during these times of calls the TrapSpy app showed over a dozen enforcement locations active with in a short distance and reported within 3 hrs or less.

    Also several cases of WPS officers responding within 15mins to peacefully protests by WiseUpWinnipeg members with $low Down signs at locations with deficient engineering and issuing parking tickets that later get tossed by the Crown for missing signage.

    The priority doesnt seem to be where it belongs in many cases.

    Every time alleged traffic offenses proven in court to be unlawful from missing signage and other issues the dismiss the tickets but refuse to refund those that paid in good faith.

    The vast majority of alleged offenses involve 42 or 43 in a artificially reduced 30 with no flashing lights as recommended by engineers and caa, 63 or 64 in an artificially reduced 50 also against engineering recommendations for safety or a few tenths of a second into red with dangerously short 4 sec amber time with no advance warning flashers.
    Correct these known and often created deficiencies and violation drop by 95%.

    This misuse of valuable and limited responses, abuse on the road, in court and by MPI of the average safe driver is resulting is loss of trust respect and confidence in police, the courts and government. This puts police and the public at higher risks of violence in heated situations. Many officers attending calls to domestic disturbances get verbally or physically assaulted by both parties. If they respected more would this happen less?

    The majority of this equates to unlawful taxation as fines and with the fines being up to six times higher than anywhere in Canada it resulting in up to $70 Million per year taken from drivers and vehicle owners before considering MPI demerit related penalties. That equates to $420 Million per year taken from the economy with velocity of money.
    That kind of money if spent in the economy would stimulate a lot of growth and legit revenue. This revenue before proper safety agenda and less focus on serious crime than is needed is costing in many other ways as well.

  • Traffic law changes exploit drivers

    By: Curt Pankratz
    Posted: 03/21/2019 4:00 AM |
    WINNIPEG FREE PRESS FILES
    With fines of $300 to $700 for traffic infractions, enforcement in Winnipeg generates $4 million per month in revenue.
    Manitobans generally do not see traffic enforcement as a serious legal issue, and we’re losing our rights because of it.
    Enforcement in Winnipeg generates $4 million per month in revenue. Such revenue generation depends on Manitobans to see traffic violations as simple matters. Simplistic publicity campaigns reinforce this belief by, for example, telling drivers to “just slow down.”
    But traffic is a serious issue. It is a leading cause of injury and death, and depending on how it’s done, enforcement can increase or decrease safety.
    Traffic infractions are no small matter, either. Manitoba has the highest traffic fines in Canada, and typical fines of $300 to $700 constitute a considerable expense to most people. It’s not acceptable to say “just slow down” because Winnipeg violates nearly every national engineering standard for traffic signage, amber light timing and speed limits, and has 173 missing school-zone signs that it refuses to replace.
    In this context, predatory enforcement can accumulate astonishing revenue because it can ticket people who are driving safely. The challenge for revenue-hungry police and government is that when large fines are given to thousands of reasonable drivers, there will be a lot of court challenges.
    In Manitoba, three main strategies have been adopted to deal with this, and they are costing Manitobans their rights.
    First, Manitobans have lost their right to be tried before a judge and to choose a representative. In 2006, the province created the Judicial Justice of the Peace (JJP) program. It hired several people and anointed them with judicial powers to preside in traffic court. The idea was to reduce the burden on provincial judges.
    However, JJPs do not require legal training and some are related to police officials or have historical connections with the Crown’s office. Importantly, JJPs have been more likely than judges to rule in favour of the Crown on key issues, even when evidence and submissions are the same. The Crown has therefore often sought to kick critical cases from judges to JJPs.
    Court transcripts also identify a range of legal misapplications by some JJPs, such as disregarding precedent, subjecting representatives to involuntary bag searches and preventing arguments from the defence.
    JJPs have also been essential to the recent efforts of the prosecution to restrict the accused’s right to appoint another person to represent them. This right is spelled out in the Provincial Offences Act, as well as on the back of each ticket. Although the ticket also states that a representative may be excluded based on the justice’s “opinion,” in the law there is a much higher standard for excluding a representative than the ticket suggests.
    Nevertheless, court transcripts indicate that the prosecution often moves to block representatives who win cases, and such motions have only been successful when a JJP is presiding rather than a judge.
    Second, in 2015 the province initiated what it calls the “pre-plea triage program.” Its roots are problematic from the get-go because it is based on an exclusive partnership between Prosecution Services and the courts, which are supposed to be independent of one another.
    This program requires anyone who wants to challenge their ticket to go to 373 Broadway in person. Once there, they are required to go through a series of lineups and meetings before they can request a trial date.
    It is a violation of the law to require this process. The law gives the accused the right to request a trial from the courts without these steps. The program is designed to whisk thousands of drivers through, offering fine reductions if necessary but avoiding legal entanglements associated with predatory enforcement and traffic engineering deficiencies.
    The third strategy is the transformation of the law itself. Under the law, which was adopted in November 2017, several key rights have been eliminated. First, the court now uses “certificate evidence.” This is where the accusing officer certifies their version of events and submits the certificate to the court. The content of the certificate is taken as proof until the accused proves their innocence.
    This is tied to a second problem, which is that the officer no longer attends the trial, and the accused no longer has the right to cross-examine them. By contrast, the prosecution has the right to cross-examine the testimony of the accused, as well as any witnesses they produce.
    Finally, the law eliminates the right to appeal decisions made in traffic court. Appeals now require permission from the court, and you cannot appeal the facts as interpreted by the presiding judge or JJP.
    Further exploitative polices are being planned, and if Manitobans continue to see traffic enforcement as a minor legal issue, our rights will continue to erode.
    Curt Pankratz is associate professor in the department of sociology at the University of Winnipeg.

  • Should the public allow known cash grabs to prevent unknown ones?

    Image: Winnipeg Sun

    Feb 25 2018 – WiseUpWinnipeg

    If an informed public are willing to allow what equates to unlawful taxation as fines and arguably breach of trust or unlawful enrichment to prevent another cash cow or raising taxes elsewhere we are heading in the wrong direction.

    Too many have fallen for the typical propaganda of we have to cut services or raise taxes. There is bloated bureaucracy, incompetence, unethical influence and corruption running rampant. The jurisdictions that have cleaned this up have more than enough legit revenue to provide great value for tax dollars without abusing their citizens with dial on demand taxation as fines.

    This isn’t even considering the harm the scameras proven to cause with dangerously short amber times, removed and inadequate signage, other known and created deficiencies and taking $70M a year from drivers, vehicles owners and their families every year in just Winnipeg. With velocity of money that equates to over $450M per year or $.5 Billion since 2003.

  • Traffic ticket court bars representative for ‘acting as a lawyer’

    Todd Dube, founder of Wise Up Winnipeg (left) and Keith MacCharles, who is fighting two radar tickets, in front of the traffic courts in Winnipeg on Tuesday
    MIKAELA MACKENZIE / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS

    Traffic ticket court bars representative for ‘acting as a lawyer’

    By: Kevin Rollason – Winnipeg Free Press
    01/29/2019 7:00 PM |

    If it talks like a lawyer, writes legal briefs like a lawyer, and acts like a lawyer, it probably is a lawyer, according to a judicial justice of the peace and the Crown.

    However, a driver advocacy organization believes that’s not true — and anyone can be enlisted to help fight a photo radar speeding ticket.

    In traffic court Tuesday, Judicial Justice of the Peace Nettie Cuthbert-Buchanan agreed with the Crown’s motion to not allow Christian Sweryda, a second-year law student at the University of Manitoba, to act for a company charged under the Highway Traffic Act for two of its vehicles speeding through photo radar zones.

    “I am barring Mr. Sweryda from acting as a representative in this matter,” Cuthbert-Buchanan said.

    “He is acting as a lawyer… (the) standards are put in place to protect the public… Mr. Sweryda’s actions are the practice of law.”

    Cuthbert-Buchanan said she was using a section in the provincial offences act which states a justice “may bar a person from appearing as a representative if the justice finds that the person is not able to properly represent or advise the person for whom they appear.”

    The stance was challenged by Todd Dube, founder of Wise Up Winnipeg.

    On the back of a traffic ticket, under the heading Authorization to Appear or Act, it states a person charged with the offence can “act personally or by representative in any proceeding. To authorize another person to appear or act on your behalf, you must provide him/her with your written authorization to present to the court.”

    “The legal process abuses, that we’ve seen in traffic court over the years by the Crown and the judicial justice of the peaces, has been alarming,” Dube said after court.

    “What we saw here (Tuesday) was the preference of both those parties to keep informed people out of their courtroom. The legal errors we saw (Tuesday) will easily be overturned on appeal,” he said. “Traffic court in Manitoba requires an independent inquiry.”

    The traffic ticket court case itself involves two speeding tickets handed out after company vehicles passed photo radar vehicles last year. The matter has been put over until March.

    Keith MacCharles, owner of Airmaster Signs, said he is fighting the tickets and wanted Sweryda, a friend of his family, to help him.

    “The legal process abuses, that we’ve seen in traffic court over the years by the Crown and the judicial justice of the peaces, has been alarming”

    – Todd Dube

    “I’m fighting it because they seem to be more concerned about me getting a ticket than with getting me to slow down,” MacCharles said after court. “They could easily put signs up or traffic calming devices, but they don’t because they want to give out tickets.”

    Earlier, the court was told that, for months, Sweryda has appeared for numerous people charged with photo radar violations and has written legal briefs used in the matters.

    Crown attorney Amanda Cheys said prosecutors became increasingly concerned, as while the back of the ticket states people charged can get others to help in court, it does not allow people who are not lawyers “free rein as a lawyer without the protections put in place for lawyers.”

    Want to get a head start on your day?

    Get the day’s breaking stories, weather forecast, and more sent straight to your inbox every morning.

    The court was told the province addressed the matter several years ago, when it allowed businesses such as POINTTS and Traffic Ticket Experts to represent people, as long as they registered and bonded.

    Cheys said it is the Crown’s view allowing someone to represent a person in traffic court was intended for a relative or friend to come if there were language difficulties or if they needed emotional support.

    Sweryda disagreed and said the Crown didn’t have any problems with him representing people until he won a charter motion last year.

    “(Since) then, they have fought to have me removed,” he said. “To put it bluntly, it is opponent shopping.”

    Sweryda said he represents people he knows, and doesn’t get paid to for his time in traffic court

    kevin.rollason@freepress.mb.ca
    Reporter

    Kevin Rollason is one of the more versatile reporters at the Winnipeg Free Press. Whether it is covering city hall, the law courts, or general reporting, Rollason can be counted on to not only answer the 5 Ws — Who, What, When, Where and Why — but to do it in an interesting and accessible way for readers.

    —

    Comments from a member observing in court.

    Fun facts missing from what was said in the court room today: to make more profit, the court allows non-lawyers and students to pretend to be the prosecutors, and allows just about anyone to pretend to be the judge (JJP) in traffic court. There are 3 sides, the govt side, the victim / accused side, and the judge. This non-judge has declared that the victim cannot seek help from a non-lawyer. If the victim does hire a lawyer, he or she would be the only lawyer in the room!. Can the bias here be any more clear?

    In real court rooms, the judge has been promoted from being a practicing lawyer, and the prosecution team is made up of lawyers. Not so in what they pretend is “traffic court”.

  • MB fine option to pay with community service not available for some

    Jan 21 2019 – WiseUpWinnipeg

    In MB the fine option to pay with community service is no longer available for HTA and parking alleged offences including traffic matters.

    It used to be an option on the back of the alleged offense notices. Was this done in the lead up to photo and parking enforcement being implemented with For Profit partners?

    Saskatchewan wants to or has taken this option away as well.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/fine-option-rules-could-hurt-non-profits-1.4098904

    A justice should be able to overrule this policy if requested by the accused after a conviction when they asked if they need time to pay.

    Has any one tried this?

    If denied it may require filing a motion application (free for non civil including HTA matters) with the Provincial Court. E.g 408 York Ave, Wpg. Which will be heard by a proper Justice not a JJP aka majistrate like in POC / Traffic or as some senior Crown refer to it Kangaroo Court.

    Taking this option away hurts low income people, families and communities the hardest. Especially when they can stop the renewal of a drivers license or insurance for non payment and fines are up to six times higher than elsewhere in Canada.

    Many require a license for employment and public transit not available where or the times they need it. This can force some into poverty and a vicious cycle that in some cases leads them from being a productive member of society to homeless and being a unnecessary strain on public services.

    It not uncommon for fines for designated construction zones which are doubled being over $600. In many cases multiple alleged offenses issued to same vehicle owner in short period due to zone extended beyond any construction and signage missing, blown down or inadequate. When this proven with City issued FIPPA request results that are also online the JJP’s have denied them being used and ignored photos of signage missing.

    Regardless the accused can appeal but this costs $35, cost of transcript and time off work. In MB there has been a trend of bias and errors for simple traffic matters especially in the lower court. The Chief Justices have said in responses to formal complaints about this “that is what the appeal process is for”. Not all can afford the cost to appeal, for transcript and time off work.

    The accused can still make payments but even this is difficult for those on fixed or limited income.

    —

    The government of Manitoba has created a fine-option program under Manitoba Regulation 178/88 which entitles any person, regardless of financial circumstances, to elect to perform community work, rather than pay the fine.

    Who do I contact for more information?

    Winnipeg: (204) 945-6313

    Toll-Free in Manitoba: (204) 1-800-282-8066

    www.gov.mb.ca/justice/courts/fine.html

    WiseUpWinnipeg

    Volunteer Public Advocates and Cummunity Group

    To earn more about use, get more informed, donate and volunteer visit www.wiseupwinnipeg.com

    To share this post outside facebook

    MB fine option to pay with community service not available for some

  • Serious issues with how photo and officer traffic enforcement used in Winnipeg

    Jan 17 2019 – Kevin Yaworski

    There has been many good articles by Tom Brodbeck about Photo Enforcement in Winnipeg. The Bowman led City and Pallister led Province have only allowed the many serious issues around it to get worse.

    Why does WPS, the City, Province and MPI include or depend on fine or demerit related revenue from photo or officer traffic “safety” enforcement in their budgets?

    Why are the conditions of authority for photo and officer traffic enforcement, court directives, charter and other legal rights not enforced or ignored?

    It has been suggested to elected and appointed officials repeatedly that this “revenue” should not be included in budgets and doing so plus the lack of enforcement of above conditions and rights has led to:

    1) Ignoring of MUTCD, ITE and other proven national traffic engineering safety standards for speed limit setting, intersection amber times, speed limit, reduction and photo enforcement and related signage. Removal of hundreds of the above public paid and engineering recommended signage with no valid reason. Just excuse that too much signage is confusing.

    2) Aggressive and predatory enforcement by photo and officers of zones with known and dangerous engineering deficiencies with low safety risks.

    3) Diverting officers from community support and other important units to work pensionable OT on traffic duty and targeting almost exclusivly deficient locations as mentioned above.

    4) Less availability or focus by officers, Crown, the Courts and other limited and valuable resources than is needed on preventing, investigating, solving and prosecuting serious crime (violent, property, blue collar, corporate and financial).

    5) Up to 150,000 photo and 55,000 officer issues alleged traffic offenses per year in Winnipeg with upward trend and up to 25% contesting rate by accused vehicle owners or drivers. This volume, contesting rate with fines up to 6 times higer than elsewhere in Canada are many times higher than the Canadian average per capita.

    6) Calls to police for B & E and other serious crimes taking up to 36 hours to get response or 911 callers getting told there is no officers available yet multiple peaceful protests by WiseUpWinnipeg members in Construction or School zones with unlawful setup and inadequate signage get response by WPS in under 15 mins. Other cases with no response while the TrapSpy app reporting many officers nearby doing traffic enforcement

    7) Undue pressure on Clerks, Crown, JJP’s, Justices and the courts in general from above volume and contesting rate and resulting in a well documented trend of bias and errors in transcripts, decisions and other court records.

    8 ) Backlogs and delays of up to 24 months to go to trial for simple traffic matters. These and other charter violations created as a result of the predatory enforcement and “safety revenue” schemes. They resulted in Court clerks, Crown and other valuable resources diverted from family court and other important courts. Clerks resigning after pressured into calling accused vehicle owners or drivers to discuss their options and actions they felt were unfair or underhanded.

    9) Ignoring or misinterpreting of court directives, due process, charter and other legal rights, legislation, sworn oaths, professional standards and MB Justice policies by photo enforcement operators, police officers, Crown, JJP’s and some Justices, Chief Justices, LERA commissioners, APEGM / EGM in order to reduce delays, get convictions, reduced fine plea deals and dismiss formal complaints.

    10) For profit TSS / Xerox / Conduent photo enforcement operators caught in many photos sleeping or distracted while “observing violations”. Operators or Officers making false statements, falsifying notes and other evidence, lying under oath / perjury about signage checked and present, that they were present at the time of the violation and others with little to no consequences. Trend of a lack of or last minute disclosure of officer notes, observation logs, zone and setup diagrams etc … Trend of lying, misleading or bullying of accused by Crown to reduce delays and get plea deals. Trend of Crown and JJP’s denying valid requests for adjournment like last minute disclosure, rights of the self represented ignored and others.

    11) Loss of public trust, respect and confidence in police, courts, elected and appointed officials and the system in general which has serious consequences.

    12) Anti-public interest legislation / acts, bylaws and policies put in place without due diligence, proper public consultation or debate that allow more breaches of due process, charter and other legal rights instead of dealing with the known and root issues mentioned above. This included but not limited to the option to plead not guilty removed from back of alleged offense notices and form removed from MB JUS website, the right to a fair trial, face your accused and to a proper appeal taken away or made very difficult to know about or stand up for.

    Once more of the public get informed of these abuses, misuse of valuable and limited public resources and then take collective and meaningful action things will change.

    This doesnt even go into the issue with unfair and unlawful parking enforcement by WPA / CoW and their For Profit partner G4S Tech (now has new name to try and dodge rap from trend of behavior against public interests).

    —

    WiseUpWinnipeg
    We are Public Advocates for proper safety, engineering, education, legislation plus fair and lawful enforcement (in that order) and related.

    To get more informed of the facts and impacts of ignoring, donate and volunteer visit www.wiseupwinnipeg.com, www.facebook.com/groups/WiseUpWinnipeg announcement and regular pinned posts included nested links.

    Together we can make a difference.

    Like and Follow us on Twitter and Facebook at @WiseUpWpg
    Disclaimer: We are volunteer public advocates. If you require legal advice contact a Lawyer registered with LSM, legal aid if you qualify, the public interest law center or recognized law clinic at University.

  • Changes to DUI legislation in Canada – Criminal defense lawyer speaks out

    The Bill C-46 amendments now in affect give police increased power to stop any driver to ensure they are sober. (pixabay/stevepb)

    —

    Dec 19 2018 – WiseUpWinnipeg

    Here is a summary of changes to impaired driving legislation in Canada from a criminal defense lawyer including mandatory screening and penalties. It also has suggestions if you get stopped and if you alleged to be impaired.

    Thanks to criminal defense lawyer Karl Gowenlock for this summary and suggestions if stopped or accused of driving while impaired.

    We have also included links to the legislation details, some information from CBC on some of the issues with it that will likely result in court challenges and the @TrapSpy App.

    —

    For all the people posting about the new Impaired Driving laws coming into force on Dec 18, please allow me to summarize the changes, as well as the current state of the law, and hopefully clear up a lot of confusion. I am an experienced criminal defence lawyer who does a lot of Impaired Driving cases, so I have some idea what I’m talking about. [UPDATED, see below]

    Alcohol:

    – The police already have the authority to stop you without any suspicion, simply to check if you are licenced and sober. (This has been upheld as constitutional – although it infringes our section 9 right against arbitrary detention, the court found it a justified infringement under section 1)

    – The police can now make a demand you blow into a road-side screening device without any suspicion whatsoever . (Before this week they needed “reasonable suspicion of alcohol in the blood” – ie. smell on breath, admitting to having a drink etc..)

    – As it was already, if you refuse to blow you have committed a criminal offence on par (or worse) with Impiared Driving in its consequences and you will be arrested for Refusing a Screening Demand. You DO NOT have a right to talk to a lawyer before you answer the screening demand.

    – As it was already, if the police have “reasonable grounds to believe” your ability to drive is impaired by alcohol (or drug, or combination of both) OR you fail a roadside screening test, you can be arrested for impaired driving and the police will make a demand that you take a breathalyzer (or a blood test in the case of drugs) at the station or in a checkstop van.

    – You DO have a right to talk to a lawyer before you answer a breathalyzer or blood demand. If you refuse a justified breathalyzer or blood demand, you have committed a criminal offence just as bad or worse than blowing over.

    – They are LOWERING the legal limit by 10 mg per 100ml of blood. Previously it was illegal to drive over 80 mg. Because breathalyzer machines give a reading to the nearest 10 mg, and always round down, this meant that the effective legal limit was 89 mg/100ml. Under the new law it is illegal to drive at 80mg or over. So now the effective limit is now 79 mg/100ml.

    – Previously it was simply illegal to operate a motor vehicle over the legal limit or while your ability to do so was impaired. Now it is also illegal to have a blood alcohol level (or drug level or drug/alcohol level) over the limit within two hours after driving, unless you drank the alcohol after the driving AND you had no reasonable expectation that you would have to give a sample.

    – The minimum sentence for a first offence of Impaired Driving, Driving over the legal alcohol (or drug) limit, or Refusal, is a $1000 fine and a 1 year driving prohibition. There are other consequences from MPI on top of this. There are also higher minimum fines for higher blood alcohol levels.

    Drugs

    – They have instituted a blood THC limit. It is very low. 5 ng/ml or over is on par with Impaired Driving in its consequences.

    – Over 2 ng/ml but less than 5 is a new criminal offence with a max fine of $1000 and a discretionary (rather than a mandatory) driving prohibition of max 1 year.

    – A regular user may take 24-48 hours to get below these limits. So it is basically illegal for any medical marijuana user to ever drive.

    – They have LOWERED the legal limit for ALCOHOL to 50 ml/100ml if you have 2.5 ng/ml or more of THC in your blood.

    – In order to demand you take the road-side screeing device for cannabis (or demand you perform a field drug recognition evaluation) police must still have reasonable suspicion of cannabis in the bloodstream. You DO NOT have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering the demand. It is a criminal offence to refuse a justified demand.

    – They have also introduced specific blood limits for common illegal drugs.

    I personally believe many of these changes should be declared unconstitutional, and hope cases come my way that allow me to challenge them. I think there is a good chance the suspicion-less demand power will be struck down by the courts, and possibly the very low blood THC level too. But this is far from certain. And remember, until the courts say a law is unconstitutional, that law still applies. And launching a constitutional challenge has a significant cost in legal fees… so be careful out there and follow the law! (and follow your Trap Spy!)

    Most importantly: if you are charged with a criminal offence TALK TO A CRIMINAL DEFENCE LAWYER before deciding what to do. There are very often defences you don’t realize, and almost all lawyers will give you a free consultation.

    UPDATE: One VERY IMPORTANT change I forgot to mention is that the maximum penalty for drive impaired is increased from 5 to 10 years. While it is exceedingly rare for someone to get the maximum, the bigger effect is that people who are not citizens can now face deportation. Under immigration law, a “serious crime” is defined as anything with a sentence of 10 years or more. A permanent resident who is convicted of “a serious crime” can be sent to a deportation hearing.

    Original post and discussion

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/WiseUpWinnipeg/permalink/10155572342786222/

    —

    Always drive sober and attentive. To avoid delays from Checkstops that often hand out costly tickets for non moving violations instead of warnings and be alerted of police speed traps in locations with known, created and often dangerous engineering deficiencies get the TrapSpy App in the Google Play or Apple App Store.

    —

    Related

    New impaired driving laws could unintentionally criminalize sober drivers

    Impaired Driving Laws

    https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/sidl-rlcfa/index.html