This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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
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.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Last edited by Gman.45; 11-26-2020 at 12:29 AM.
.
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!
I never thought I would see the day where Mitch Hedberg would appear to be our latest Nostradamus.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xPq0-8dyl8I
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.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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
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.
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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.
Well give the cops more power and then defund them so they can't catch anyone sounds like a good compromise.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Rules on paper but no enforcement.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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.
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.
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.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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?
---
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.
.
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!
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.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Looking around
Wondering what became
Of what I once knew
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.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
.
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!
Oh it was my idea to enact this asinine new process? No it wasn't. Nice try though.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote