how to fight a by-law ticket?

[GTS Jeff]

Maybe you lawyers and lawyer-wannabes can help me out. :D

Last year I got a city ticket for "car unattended on jacks." Basically what happened is I left my car on jackstands overnight in front of a friend's house. Now this is a bogus ticket because a car is just as secure on jackstands (not jacks as the ticket says) as on tires. My car was left alone overnight and couldn't be put back down because the gas tank was dropped. I sent an appeal back to the city saying that they must be mistaken, but they denied my appeal and sent the ticket to the provincial courts.

How can I possibly fight this ticket now? I'm thinking either:

a. ticket is for leaving a vehicle on jacks, not jackstands.
b. I was only inside momentarily to warm up.

Here is the ticket and the officer's notes.

Thanks for any help.

[GTS Jeff]

.

[BlueGoblin]

Without trying to be ignorant, its not a bogus ticket because leaving a vehicle unattended on jacks is a ticketable offense; the stability isn't arguable unless you wish to attempt to prove the unconstitutionality of the law. Good luck if you so choose, and may your pockets be deep. Unattended, moreover, is unattended. The length of time unattended is somewhat irrelevant, plus you would have to perjure yourself to claim that it was only just a moment that you had so left it.

Bad luck that you got caught perhaps - there are lots of bylaws broken each day that escape tickets.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by BlueGoblin
Without trying to be ignorant, its not a bogus ticket because leaving a vehicle unattended on jacks is a ticketable offense; the stability isn't arguable unless you wish to attempt to prove the unconstitutionality of the law. Good luck if you so choose, and may your pockets be deep. Unattended, moreover, is unattended. The length of time unattended is somewhat irrelevant, plus you would have to perjure yourself to claim that it was only just a moment that you had so left it.

Bad luck that you got caught perhaps - there are lots of bylaws broken each day that escape tickets. Makes sense.

What about the fact that the law mentions jacks and not jackstands? I can understand how leaving a car on a jack is unsafe, but jackstands are another story. The car is resting on solid metal, not hydraulics.

[BlueGoblin]

Actually - you might have a point there; I guess I didn't read carefully enough. What you have to check though is the actual wording of the bylaw itself - should be available online through the city of Edmonton and see what it actually says - on the ticket portion they just put an abbreviated portion of the longer description. Usually they are written in such a way as to encompass a wide range of things, blocks, jackstands, jacks, leaving it on the frame after stripping the wheels off etc. It is worth checking the full-on wording to make sure that it is still the proper charge and section. Thanks for pointing that out...

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by BlueGoblin
Actually - you might have a point there; I guess I didn't read carefully enough. What you have to check though is the actual wording of the bylaw itself - should be available online through the city of Edmonton and see what it actually says - on the ticket portion they just put an abbreviated portion of the longer description. Usually they are written in such a way as to encompass a wide range of things, blocks, jackstands, jacks, leaving it on the frame after stripping the wheels off etc. It is worth checking the full-on wording to make sure that it is still the proper charge and section. Thanks for pointing that out... Awesome, I'll do that. Thanks for the help. :thumbsup:

[ramminghard]

is your time and trouble to attempt to get the ticket dropped worth $50?

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by ramminghard
is your time and trouble to attempt to get the ticket dropped worth $50? Definitely. Between $150 textbooks and $500 flywheels, I don't have a cent to spare.

If anyone does, please PM me for my paypal addy. :D jk

[LUDELVR]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
Definitely. Between $150 textbooks and $500 flywheels, I don't have a cent to spare.

If anyone does, please PM me for my paypal addy. :D jk

No doubt man, any cent that can be prevented from going into the Alberta Government's already deep pockets is fine by me! They are just looking for any cent that they can get from its citizens!

Anyway, I'd look up the exact charge. Find a copy (on the internet) about the exact charge. There's one website that has the exact charge, and it's corresponding meaning...you can also find a few loopholes there too!

I think it was somewhere on the queen's bench website or something like that. I don't quite remember! haha, but I'll try and find it once I go home! haha. :thumbsup:

Kudos to you Jeff for fighting the system...and Da Man! hahaha :rofl:

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by LUDELVR
Anyway, I'd look up the exact charge. Find a copy (on the internet) about the exact charge.

Kudos to you Jeff for fighting the system...and Da Man! hahaha :rofl:

:thumbsup:

Here it is:


624 VEHICLE ON JACK
A person shall not leave a vehicle unattended on a highway if

(a) the vehicle is on a jack or a similar device, and


(b) one or more wheels have been removed from the vehicle or part of the vehicle is raised.

I'm not quite sure how to interpret this. For Part A, it says jack or similar device. Is a jackstand a similar device? I'd argue it isn't since it is a solid piece of metal and not a hydraulic pump like a jack. For Part B, no wheels were removed although the vehicle was raised. My understanding is that Part B is only applicable if Part A is valid, right?

So do you guys think I have a good case for a jackstand not being similar to a jack?

[QuasarCav]

I think you do! The jack and the jackstand operate in two different ways. One is pumped up and relies on hydraulic pressure to keep the vehicle raised. The other relies on metal. You could argue that the law is to prevent a runaway vehicle from coming of the jacks and damaging property. You could show that a jackstand does not fail very easily and that your vehicle was secure.

I think if you can prove that you did not contravene section A, section B cannot apply.

Good luck Jeff

:thumbsup:

[Tyler883]

you weren't parked on a highway, see if this is the actual subsection of law that you are being charged under.

EDIT:
yup, your ticket shows 624. This might seem like a lame attempt on it's own, but if you combine it with your arguement about jackstands, its only bound to make your case stronger.

[QuasarCav]

Originally posted by Tyler883
you weren't parked on a highway, see if this is the actual subsection of law that you are being charged under.


Highway is any road with traffic, they call it a highway not a road.

[Tyler883]

quasar,

I beleive your right, but I wonder if you can find an a definiton as part of the traffic safety act

[BlueGoblin]

"1(1) In this Act,

...(edit for brevity)...

(p) "highway" means any thoroughfare, street, road, trail,
avenue, parkway, driveway, viaduct, lane, alley, square,
bridge, causeway, trestleway or other place or any part of
any of them, whether publicly or privately owned, that the
public is ordinarily entitled or permitted to use for the
passage or parking of vehicles and includes
(i) a sidewalk, including a boulevard adjacent to the
sidewalk,
(ii) if a ditch lies adjacent to and parallel with the
roadway, the ditch, and
(iii) if a highway right of way is contained between
fences or between a fence and one side of the
roadway, all the land between the fences, or all the
land between the fence and the edge of the roadway,
as the case may be,
but does not include a place declared by regulation not to
be a highway;"

Basically, if you can drive your car onto it, with the exception of your own private driveway or garage, its a highway, and the Traffic Safety Act applies. In this instance, it is a bylaw that appears to have given rise to the relevant charge, but normally the bylaws are so written as to use the TSA definitions.

[BlueGoblin]

Sorry - forgot to post the link for the wording of the TSA:

www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/acts/T06.cfm

The Queens Printer site can get you the wording for any provincial act, and there are many of them....

[lastskpirate]

i agree with GTS Jeff and i would too question this ticket.

say for instance that the unsafe nature of the car is what is being disputed here, what would happen in a situation where you came out and found your car was on concrete blocks because someone stole your rims, could a cop come by and give the registered owner a ticket because the car is unsafely parked?

[Tyler883]

I agree with GTS, but does anyone have a definiion for "jack"? I think you have a case if a jackstand is not similar in function to a jack. Simply argueing that the jack stand is safer, may not be enough to convince a grumpy judge.

[GTS Jeff]

Quoted from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:


Jack: a usually portable mechanism or device for exerting pressure or lifting a heavy body a short distance

Jack stand: stand whose height may be adjusted and fixed by a pin and which is used to support an automobile that has been raised by a jack

Do you think this along with the picture I've attached is enough to sway the judge, or maybe even convince the prosecutors to drop the ticket? I'm not sure if municipal prosecutors are as willing to drop tickets as first appearance provincial prosecutors.

[Khyron]

Isn't the spirit of the law to prevent people from doing repairs in the street? Also because you can't tow a vehicle that is lacking wheels. The unattended part is probably to exempt people changing flats etc. But you certainly can't just leave a car on blocks on the street in front of your house.

My 2 cents anyway.

Khyron