Cell Phone Ban effective October 2009 on Ontario’s roads.
Posted by Admin in New Laws Update: See earlier post. In October, 2009 Bill 118 – Countering Distracted Driving and Promoting Green Transportation Act, 2009 will be implemented and enforced on the highways, streets and roads of Ontario after a public awareness program is conducted for Ontarians, concerning the new prohibition on driving while using or viewing electronic hand-held devices (this includes, cell phones, I-Phones, smart-phones, blackberries, iPods, MP3 players, DVD players, laptop computers, eBook readers, portable games), is conducted. Similar rules and laws have already been passed in other Provinces.
In fact, Ontario followed four (4) other Provinces in passing this legislation. Ontario follows Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Nova Scotia. Manitoba follows Ontario as the sixth Province implementing similar legislation.
The rules in Ontario for using a hand-held device attract less sanctions then Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Nova Scotia. Starting in October, 2009: In Ontario, if police witness you using a hand-held device (to: view, talk, listen, emailing (reading or sending or writing) or text messaging (reading or sending or writing) or observing a GPS (global positioning system) unit (not properly affixed to the dashboard) while operating a motor vehicle (you are situated behind the steering wheel of the vehicle and are operating it and have care and control of the motor vehicle) in Ontario, you will receive a ticket worth up to $500.00. See sections 78 (1) to 78.1 (subsections 1-8 inclusive) of the (Highway Traffic Act)
If the police consider your use of such a device as careless driving, you could potentially be charged with careless driving pursuant to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act. A conviction for this offence, would mean the driver would accumulate six (6) demerit points on your driving record, face a huge fine, up to $2000.00 (and a huge increase in insurance premiums or having insurance cancelled), suspension of one’s driver’s licence and possible incarceration. • In Newfoundland and Labrador: if you are convicted of this offence (which came into effect on April 1, 2003), you will receive a ticket and a fine in a range of $100.00 to $400.00 and will accumulate four (4) demerit points. If the defendant defaults on payment of the fine, they face possible incarceration of 2 – 14 days. See section 176.1 of the Newfoundland and Labrador Highway Traffic Act. •
Prince Edward Island prohibits (which began April 1, 2007) newly licensed drivers (Stage 1) from using cell-phones (or utilizing headphones) or any hand-held electronic device while operating or having care or control of a motor vehicle. driving. See section 6 of Graduated Driver Licensing Regulations P.E.I Reg. EC225/07 + P.E.I. Reg. EC321/01 ($100.00 fine)), - Enabling Legislation- subsection 69(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988. • In Quebec: if you are convicted of this offence (which began on April 1, 2008), you will receive a fine of $115.00 + and will accumulate three (3) demerit points. Bill 42 (An Act to amend the Highway Safety Code and the Regulation respecting demerit points -see section 26.1) See sections 439.1 and 508.3 of the Highway Safety Code. •
In Nova Scotia: See Bill 7 (An Act to Amend Chapter 293 of the Revised Statutes, 1989, the Motor Vehicle Act).If you are convicted of this offence (which began on April 1, 2008) , you will be fined starting at $135.75 for a first offence, $164.50 and up to $222.00 for repeated subsequent offences (see N.S. Reg.4/2001 – 5A (1) Category A). See section 100D (1) & (2) of the Nova Scotia, Motor Vehicle Act. • Manitoba: introduced legislation in November that proposed fines of at least $190 for using hand-held cell-phones. Bill 5 was given royal assent on June 11, 2009. see Manitoba Highway Traffic Act – s.215.1(1) to 215.1(6). • British Columbia’s Solicitor General, Kash P. Heed, has called for public input by August 7, 2009 on possible restrictions on cell-phone use and on the issue of sanctions. Those who are exempt from this new Ontario law: Police, Firefighters and Paramedics; Driver’s (who are not police, firefighters or paramedics) requiring emergency services, are exempt from the law if they are calling “911?.
As a driver in Ontario, you are exempt from this law if you are calling “911? as a result of an emergency or if you are pulled over safely off of the roadway or you are properly parked. How can a driver, operating a motor vehicle in Ontario, make or accept a phone call without violating this law? If driver’s, driving in Ontario want to initiate outgoing phone calls or accept incoming phone calls, the law provides for the use of hands-free devices (i.e.-headsets, Bluetooth technology, On-Star, etc.). If you want to use your communication (that is not a hands-free device) or entertainment device, in compliance with the law, while you are behind the wheel in a motor vehicle, you must meet these conditions: the motor vehicle you are operating, is off the roadway or is lawfully parked on the roadway. the motor vehicle you are operating, is not in motion (this doesn’t include a “traffic light” or “stop sign) the motor vehicle you are operating, is not impeding traffic.
This means that while operating your motor vehicle as the driver and if you do not have a headset, Bluetooth technology or something similar, you must pull over and use your cell phone or i phone to initiate or accept a phone call. There was a time when driver’s had to stop and exit their motor vehicles and go to a phone booth to make a phone call. Do any of the U.S. States have similar bans on the law books? Naturally. There are only 5 U.S. States – California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Washington (includes the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands) that have an all out ban on operator of motor vehicles using cell phones.
There are 17 U.S. States which have some form of prohibition on driving and cell phone use and text messaging, especially teen drivers and bus drivers. See the chart laying out the restrictions in each State. New York Police handed out nine thousand and sixteen (9016) $120.00 summonses to motorists, who talked on a cell phone without using a headset, on March 12, 2009 in a one day blitz in New York. At least in 50 other countries around the world, the cellular phone has already been banned. Here is a list of some of those countries who will not allow motorists to talk on the phone while driving:
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Ireland, Isle of Mann, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan-Islamabad, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan and the United Kingdom. See Ontario Transportation Minister Jim Bradley trying to make a phone call on a cellular phone while driving in simulation car ride called D.U.M.B. Ontario Transportation Minister Jim Bradley isn’t currently considering banning eating or drinking or talking in motor vehicles operating on Ontario highways and roads.
No conviction if fine wrong, court rules:
May 31, 2008, (TORONTO STAR)
If you're charged with speeding or other provincial offences, avoiding a conviction could be as easy as checking the fine on your ticket – then doing nothing, according to a ruling yesterday by the Ontario Court of Appeal. In a 2-1 judgment, the court said an officer's failure to enter the correct amount in the "set fine" box on a certificate of offence means it is not "complete and regular on its face" and must be quashed by a justice of the peace.
The ruling applies primarily to people who exercise their option to do nothing after being served with an offence notice. In these cases, after 15 days, a court assumes a defendant doesn't want to dispute the charge and the matter is left to be dealt with by a justice of the peace. That's exactly what happened in the cases of 16 people charged with various offences in London, Ont. In some cases, officers who handed out the tickets relied on fine schedules that led them, inadvertently, to miscalculate a "victim fine surcharge" added to every fine.
That miscalculation resulted in the total amount payable to the court being inflated, sometimes by $5 or $10. Because the charts were in use for a decade, the province may have ended up collecting "millions" more than it was entitled to, contends Adam Little, a lawyer who began researching the issue while in law school and acted on behalf of the 16 defendants. "It's been a very big problem for years and nobody realized it," Little said yesterday. He added that anyone ticketed can check the Ontario Court of Justice website to see if their fine is accurate or ask a paralegal.
New legislation affecting motorists
May 17, 2008 (From the Toronto Star)
Q: I feel I have been unfairly blamed for a left-turn collision caused by an oncoming through-driver who ran a red light. What are the insurance industry's
fault determination rules for a left-turn collision at an intersection? What does the law say about such situations?
A: James Geuzebroek, media relations manager for the Insurance Bureau of Canada, replies: According to our auto insurance experts, the problem is anyone making a left turn basically has no right of way and can only proceed when it is clear and safe to do so. It is almost impossible to prove an oncoming vehicle went through a red light without an independent witness, and even so, the turning driver still bears liability as they should have noticed the oncoming vehicle wasn't slowing down.
In rare instances, there may be a finding of 50/50 fault, but as a rule, the
left-turner will almost always be found at-fault for a left-turn collision at an
intersection. Eric Lai adds: Under the provincial Highway Traffic Act, a left-turning driver involved in a collision may always be charged – even if the oncoming through-driver runs a red light (who may then also be charged).
According to police, the traffic light colour at the time usually cannot be definitively proven, but vehicle position and damage will normally substantiate charges of "left turn – fail to afford reasonable opportunity to avoid collision" under section 141(5) HTA and/or "turn – not in safety" under section 142(1) HTA. In cases involving serious injury, death, impaired driving or criminal activity, prosecutors may opt to lay criminal charges instead. By law, a left-turning driver in an intersection may only complete their turn when it is safe to do so.
This obligation remains in place even if the light should then turn red. (At which time, under section 144(8) HTA, the onus shifts to other road users, who, despite facing a green light, must yield the right of way and allow the trapped turning driver, who had lawfully entered the intersection on a previous green or amber light, to complete his/her left turn before proceeding.) That is, the law never compels drivers to turn and cause a collision in order to beat the light. Rather, it places the onus on the turning driver to always ensure that the manoeuvre is completed in safety with due regard for other road users and pedestrians.
Note that section 144(8) HTA does not require motorists to yield to unlawful
road users, such as drivers who jump a light changing from red to circular green
and turn left before oncoming through traffic, also facing a green light, has a chance to start moving forward. This action is an offence under section 3(8)(iv) of Ontario Regulation 455/07, the new street racing/stunt driving legislation. The
violator's vehicle may be impounded and licence suspended, both for seven days, and there's a fine of up to $10,000 upon conviction.
If instead there's an advance green involved and the violator turns after it expires, before stopped oncoming traffic can proceed on a circular green, it would be "fail to yield to traffic" under section 144(8) HTA. A stopped through-driver in the scenarios above, though legally permitted to proceed on a green light, must ensure their actions do not cause a collision. If he/she opts not to yield to the unlawful left-turner, proceeds into the intersection, and an avoidable crash occurs, the driver may possibly be charged with "start from stopped position – not in safety" under section 142(2) HTA.
Motorist experience with new Law pertaining to emergency vehicles:
I was driving on the 417 West at Panmure at broad daylight at 2 p.m., when I came upon two police cruisers who had pulled over a third vehicle. I slowed down to be cautious, and was surprised when the second cruiser pulled out and pulled me over. Approaching on the passenger side, the officer asked if I knew
why I had been pulled over. I honestly expressed that I had no idea.
He informed me that Ontario law now states that when approaching any emergency vehicle, on the roadside, with lights flashing, you must enter the left lane. He then proceeded to ticket me, taking three demerits and issuing a fine of, wait for it, $490! (Yes, I'm choking as I type that.) I realize I did not change lanes, but I do believe I was cautious. My message is, be careful. He said that they are cracking down hard on this because of three injured officers in the last ten days.
I did not realize this was the law. Neither did any of my recently-licensed children, and evidently, not the 47 drivers (I counted) who broke the same law as I sat waiting to receive my ticket!
Another driver's experience: I saw this happen today (Feb 24th) on Highway 69 South of Sudbury, in the passing lane on the Magnetewan flats. A cruiser was parked on the shoulder of the southbound lane with his lights flashing. He had no vehicle stopped, he was just parked there. I was northbound and reduced my speed, the extra lane was on the southbound side so, there were two lanes between me and the cruiser.
A southbound motorist passed the cruiser without moving to the outer lane
and the officer immediately pulled out and gave chase to that driver. I saw him stopping him in my mirror before going over the next hill. The car did not appear to be speeding, in fact he seemed to slow down, but failed to change lanes and was (presumably) stopped for that reason!
Read the actual Law below: Below is the excerpt from the Ontario Highway Traffic Act. relating to this offence. It is under section 159.1 (1), (2), (3),(4),(5). Approaching stopped emergency vehicle 159.1
(1) Upon approaching an emergency vehicle with its lamp producing intermittent
flashes of red light or red and blue light that is stopped on a highway, the driver of a vehicle travelling on the same side of the highway shall slow down and proceed with caution, having due regard for traffic on and the conditions of the highway and the weather, to ensure that the driver does not collide with the emergency vehicle or endanger any person outside of the emergency vehicle. 2002, c. 21, s. 1; 2007, c. 13, s. 20. Same
(2) Upon approaching an emergency vehicle with its lamp producing intermittent flashes of red light that is stopped on a highway with two or more lanes of traffic on the same side of the highway as the side on which the emergency vehicle is stopped, the driver of a vehicle travelling in the same lane that the emergency vehicle is stopped in or in a lane that is adjacent to the emergency vehicle.
In addition to slowing down and proceeding with caution as required by subsection (1), shall move into another lane if the movement can be made in safety. 2002, c. 21, s. 1. Same
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) prevents a driver from stopping his or her vehicle and not passing the stopped emergency vehicle if stopping can be done in safety and is not otherwise prohibited by law. 2002, c. 21, s. 1. Offence
(4) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable, (a) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than $400 and not more than $2,000; and (b) for each subsequent offence, to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $4,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. 2002, c. 21, s. 1.
Time limit for subsequent offence (5) An offence referred to in subsection (4) committed more than five years after a previous conviction for an offence referred to in subsection (4) is not a subsequent offence for the purpose of
clause (4) (b). 2002, c. 21, s. 1
Charges laid in scam defrauding seniors of $1 million
April 03, 2008
McGuinty Government Helps Protect Consumers:
Following an investigation by the province’s Consumer Protection Branch and Ottawa Police, three related home renovation companies have been charged with contract violations and unfair business practices under Ontario’s Consumer Protection Act. The scam, aimed at local seniors, involves allegations of inflated estimates, advanced fees for work not done, salespersons using false names and aggressive sales tactics.
It is alleged that the defrauded seniors lost approximately $1 million in the scam. The investigation of complaints from the public led to the filing of multiple fraud-related criminal charges by Ottawa Police against Ottawa Construction & Renovations Inc., and it’s related business operations, Kefalonia International Inc. and Bryter Home Improvements Inc. Investigators within the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services laid 57 counts under the CPA, all against these companies and two individuals: Michael Alivisatos and Christopher Patterson.
The charges were filed recently in an Ottawa court. On each count where a conviction is entered, an Ontario court may levy fines up to $250,000 for a corporation and $50,000 for an individual. An individual may also be subject to jail time up to two years less a day on each count. Provincial courts may also order offenders to pay compensation or make restitution to aggrieved consumers.
QUOTES “Ontario consumers need to know that our office takes their complaints very seriously, and that we follow up with police and other agencies to address violations of the Consumer Protection Act,” said Chris Ferguson, Director of Ontario’s Consumer Protection Branch.