Quantcast
Alberta Provincial Administrative Penalties Act - Page 2 - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: Alberta Provincial Administrative Penalties Act

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North North Dakota
    My Ride
    Nissan x2
    Posts
    583
    Rep Power
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gman.45 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It's showed positive for opioids for people that have eaten a Tim Horton's poppy seed muffin as well.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Blackfalds aka north RD, AB
    My Ride
    Bikes.Car.Truck
    Posts
    1,207
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    So essentially, we will have to wade thru a bunch of extra nonsense to get to the point where we sit currently? Currently we plead not guilty and go to a normal trial with witness/judge or commissioner. So things are definitely changing for the worse... with added costs.

    A couple things make me chuckle tho... like the adjudicator. Why waste time with them at all? You know they will not rule in your favour with the officer's notes and testimony so why bother with them? Wouldn't you just immediately say that you won't agree with their decision thereby setting the stage for appeal to the actual court.

    7 days to request a review seems ok but the review has to be finished within 21 days? That is quite the interesting change from how things are done today and laughable given my current situation... Day ~400 of waiting for a trial. lol

    Regardless, I'll run the gauntlet and be as obnoxious as possible. haha
    Looking around
    Wondering what became
    Of what I once knew

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    407
    Rep Power
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antonito View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If you disagree with the adjudicator you can appeal to court. Seriously, read the stuff you’re posting
    Will, do, there is conflicting information between the video and LE sources - one says that you can't appeal past the 1st appeal to an adjudicator, the other says you can appeal it to Queen's bench if you dislike the result of that 1st appeal. I'll read through the act myself and link what I find.
    Last edited by Gman.45; 11-26-2020 at 12:29 AM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NA
    Posts
    1,307
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    .
    Last edited by Rat Fink; 12-06-2020 at 05:26 PM.
    Thanks for the 14 years of LOLs. Govern yourselves accordingly and avoid uppercut reactions!

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    426
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gman.45 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It's showed positive for opioids for people that have eaten a Tim Horton's poppy seed muffin as well.
    I never thought I would see the day where Mitch Hedberg would appear to be our latest Nostradamus.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xPq0-8dyl8I

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    160
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gman.45 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Will, do, there is conflicting information between the video and LE sources - one says that you can't appeal past the 1st appeal to an adjudicator, the other says you can appeal it to Queen's bench if you dislike the result of that 1st appeal. I'll read through the act myself and link what I find.
    Hey man fair enough. If you can find it in the legislation that they are not allowing court appearances to appeal at all, I will agree 100% that that is bullshit.

    As it currently seems, I'm still a bit conflicted. The SJW in me dislikes the government and police making it harder to defend your rights by adding hurdles in the process for the accused. The practical person in me sees the logic in streamlining the process for the accusers and freeing up valuable court time for other matters, given the significant amount of people who fight the charges not because they are innocent, but hoping simply to find a loophole to not pay. Hell, there are still a lot of people who think if you show up and the cop doesn't, or if you can prove your car is a light green instead of blue, that you can have the whole thing thrown out, regardless of being very obviously guilty

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Upstairs
    My Ride
    Natural Gas.
    Posts
    13,332
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    I think it's not controversial to say that the current system of massive court backlogs and delays is quite broken. Changes are needed. Once you start from that agreement, reasonable people can disagree on the best way to improve the system.
    Quote Originally Posted by killramos View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You realize you are talking to the guy who made his own furniture out of salad bowls right?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    2,093
    Rep Power
    43

    Default

    When you hear about real criminals getting their cases dropped due to delays, any initiatives that can free up the courts is a win in my books.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    My Ride
    Bicycle
    Posts
    9,271
    Rep Power
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ExtraSlow View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think it's not controversial to say that the current system of massive court backlogs and delays is quite broken. Changes are needed. Once you start from that agreement, reasonable people can disagree on the best way to improve the system.
    Well give the cops more power and then defund them so they can't catch anyone sounds like a good compromise.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Homeless
    My Ride
    Blue Dabadee
    Posts
    9,599
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xtrema View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well give the cops more power and then defund them so they can't catch anyone sounds like a good compromise.
    Rules on paper but no enforcement.

    This is the way
    Originally posted by Thales of Miletus

    If you think I have been trying to present myself as intellectually superior, then you truly are a dimwit.
    Originally posted by Toma
    fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yolobimmer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    guessing who I might be, psychologizing me with your non existent degree.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    calgary ab
    My Ride
    4x4
    Posts
    2,396
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Well look at the OT police get for court dates. For basic shit it actually makes sense. Look at 90% of beyonds how do I fight this ticket threads, plea it down pay the fine, gitrdun and move on.

    But any and all impaired charges should be before a judge, even if it's procedural. Simply for the scared straight factor.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Okotoks North
    Posts
    3,857
    Rep Power
    101

    Default

    For impaired driving, this new act doesn't change much.

    Under the current system (implemented in 2018), you already get immediate punishment (license suspension, vehicle seizure) and already have to pay to appeal the suspension.

    What changes is:
    you get a longer vehicle seizure (30 days instead of 3),
    a $1000 fine

    but the biggest one, and why lawyers are against it:
    No criminal charge for first offender and therefore no court time taken up and no billable hours for lawyers. You can still appeal in court if you aren't happy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gman.45 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What I'm talking about is simple - CBD will pop you as positive for THC frequently with the machine they're using. IE right now the roadside machines in use by the RCMP and city police forces often can't differentiate THC from CBD, and will show a positive for THC from CBD products. That's what I'm talking about. Good enough? You don't have to take my word for it, Google it. It's showed positive for opioids for people that have eaten a Tim Horton's poppy seed muffin as well. Point being, under this new act, even IF this is the case for your DUI charge, have a nice day not being able to fight it.

    Hey NZwasp - I'm aware - you still can be charged, even though there is a: no agreed upon limits as to what constitutes "impaired" with various drug levels, and b: that the device doesn't detect impairment per se, due to the previous fact. That said, the device DOES give a level of whatever it detects, and that'll be what you can use as a defense, when they go ahead and charge you with DUI anyway. That is, until this new act comes into force, then you can't argue against the officer's statements or the medical info/test results, as the LE officers statements as well as the "medical" information will be taken as gospel by the new "adjudicators".
    Failing the Draeger doesn't mean you get charged. It means you get arrested and taken to see a drug recognition expert who has to find you are impaired by drugs before a blood test is done. If the blood test shows you are above the legal limits then you get charged.

    Not sure why you say there are no agreed upon limits because they are spelled out pretty clearly in the criminal code. The limits were set prior to legalization. Do you mean provinces have different limits than what Govt of Canada has set?
    ---

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    535
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Gee, weird they don't want to address the actual reasons for the court backlogs in the first place. Abolish petty traffic fines and photo radar and suddenly a huge portion of your court backlog just goes away. Not to mention it frees up police to do actual police work. But they are too drunk on revenue from these things to ever do something sensible.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NA
    Posts
    1,307
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    .
    Last edited by Rat Fink; 12-06-2020 at 05:26 PM.
    Thanks for the 14 years of LOLs. Govern yourselves accordingly and avoid uppercut reactions!

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Blackfalds aka north RD, AB
    My Ride
    Bikes.Car.Truck
    Posts
    1,207
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rat Fink View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If you read the bill you will find the plan is to be done with traffic court (all POPA trials) Dec 2021, with your dispute going through an adjudicator as well. Police will not be required to attend and will only provide their notes or other requested info.
    Yah, but if we disagree with the adjudicator, it goes back to the courts. The only extra step is some added cost. What's the adjudicator going to do? The same thing that the Crown already does in the first court date... offers $50 off for a guilty plea.
    Looking around
    Wondering what became
    Of what I once knew

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    535
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rat Fink View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If you read the bill you will find the plan is to be done with traffic court (all POPA trials) Dec 2021, with your dispute going through an adjudicator as well. Police will not be required to attend and will only provide their notes or other requested info.
    Sure, until you appeal it and go right back to court. They just added an extra step. They're already trying to do this by just not allowing you to plead down your ticket and forcing a court date that they know most people cannot attend. Regardless, you missed the point, if they just got rid of these revenue collection techniques in the first place(the root cause of the problem), it would take the burden away from the courts AND free up police resources for police work. Running a secondary court system is still going to be an expensive waste of money. The only reasonable way to do what they're trying to promote here, is to remove demerits from the system, and make it a true pay to play system, which is all it's ever been anyway since dangerous drivers are not targeted with demerit earning offences anyway.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NA
    Posts
    1,307
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    .
    Last edited by Rat Fink; 12-06-2020 at 05:26 PM.
    Thanks for the 14 years of LOLs. Govern yourselves accordingly and avoid uppercut reactions!

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    535
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rat Fink View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    YOU missed the point. Traffic tickets won't go to court after appeal. The appeal is the adjudication portion. Its a decision and done, within 30 days. No endless string of processes to bitch and whine about it.

    Last time you blabbed from your soap box you said police should be focusing on hammering distracted driving since that's the real danger (3 demerit offense too BTW, enough of them lose your licence). Now demerits should be wiped out completely? No license suspensions? You were so against distracted driving your previous rants placed it as something more dangerous than impaired driving. Are you wishy washy in real life like you are online?
    Oh it was my idea to enact this asinine new process? No it wasn't. Nice try though.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Alberta Provincial Politics - Unite the right - discussions

    By RealJimmyJames in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 36
    Latest Threads: 07-08-2016, 12:13 PM
  2. Trent reznor vs provincial and municipal leaders of alberta

    By finboy in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 1
    Latest Threads: 07-07-2015, 12:39 PM
  3. Alberta Provincial Safety inspection certificate info...JDM?

    By MadMax69 in forum General Car/Bike Talk
    Replies: 4
    Latest Threads: 06-12-2008, 01:06 AM
  4. Possible provincial sales tax in Alberta?

    By TimG in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 16
    Latest Threads: 04-25-2007, 07:46 AM
  5. SVTOA of Alberta Provincial Meeting Feb 4th

    By atomic in forum Events and Meets
    Replies: 0
    Latest Threads: 01-31-2006, 12:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •