Alberta moves to eliminate traffic court

[bjstare]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Everything is going towards a pay scale too. No more 51 plus over mandatory court charges just gonna be dinged a big ole fine.

Wow, so perhaps a tiny little positive outcome in this shit show.

[FraserB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wow, so perhaps a tiny little positive outcome in this shit show.

Not even close to anything positive. They are basically introducing a mandatory fee to contest any ticket, traffic at first and then everything else.

They're cutting the length of time to challenge a ticket to 7 days and everything will go to an adjudicator, so it won't see the inside of a courtroom. Even before that happens, you will need to pay them a non-refundable fee of $50 or $150 to even get your "hearing", the adjudicator will render their decision online or on the phone. There will be no trial and even if it turns out you're innocent, you still pay for the privilege of paying to prove it.

Then, once they successfully roll that portion out, phase 3 comes along and it applies to any regulated area governed by the province, and applies to any administrative penalty, not just fines. Driving prohibition, that's now up to a bureaucrat. Cancelling your hunting license, government bureaucrat. Requirement to attend traffic school or install an interlock device, government bureaucrat.

None of this benefits anyone other than the police, whom I'm sure won't abuse this at all.

[killramos]

I like the idea of a fee to dispute a ticket, but it should be refundable if you win, and it should be before a judge. Basically I think if you lose in court you should have to pay for the courts time in addition to your fine.

I don’t really understand how they can legislate away due process when charged with an offence which is the biggest concern here.

[bjstare]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not even close to anything positive. They are basically introducing a mandatory fee to contest any ticket, traffic at first and then everything else.

They're cutting the length of time to challenge a ticket to 7 days and everything will go to an adjudicator, so it won't see the inside of a courtroom. Even before that happens, you will need to pay them a non-refundable fee of $50 or $150 to even get your "hearing", the adjudicator will render their decision online or on the phone. There will be no trial and even if it turns out you're innocent, you still pay for the privilege of paying to prove it.

Then, once they successfully roll that portion out, phase 3 comes along and it applies to any regulated area governed by the province, and applies to any administrative penalty, not just fines. Driving prohibition, that's now up to a bureaucrat. Cancelling your hunting license, government bureaucrat. Requirement to attend traffic school or install an interlock device, government bureaucrat.

None of this benefits anyone other than the police, whom I'm sure won't abuse this at all.

Yes, I can read. Look at what I quoted.

I agree that everything listed in your post sucks for us. I was saying the positive nugget in that big heap of stuff is that for ridiculous speeding (>50 over), you don't have to go to court, you just get a big fine. Not that I exceed the speed limit by that much very often, but it's nice to know I wouldn't have to go to a mandatory court appearance.

[FraserB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes, I can read. Look at what I quoted.

I agree that everything listed in your post sucks for us. I was saying the positive nugget in that big heap of stuff is that for ridiculous speeding (>50 over), you don't have to go to court, you just get a big fine. Not that I exceed the speed limit by that much very often, but it's nice to know I wouldn't have to go to a mandatory court appearance.

The cop will tell you roadside that you're receiving an administrative penalty of fine and/or suspension. You then pay your fee to have an adjudicator make a ruling, while they set the evidentiary rules (not that they will be bound by evidentiary rules for judicial proceedings anyway) and you don't get to ask questions of the cop. But you're right, no court appearance, just a phone call telling you that you're SOL.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don’t really understand how they can legislate away due process when charged with an offence which is the biggest concern here.

It's even worse than you think. There will be no cross examinations in these hearings and the adjudicators decide what evidence must be submitted, they can decide what disclosure is given and the burden of proof is on the person who requested the review. Pretty much every single matter that can be dealt with administratively will now be reverse onus.

[Shlade]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes, I can read. Look at what I quoted.

I agree that everything listed in your post sucks for us. I was saying the positive nugget in that big heap of stuff is that for ridiculous speeding (>50 over), you don't have to go to court, you just get a big fine. Not that I exceed the speed limit by that much very often, but it's nice to know I wouldn't have to go to a mandatory court appearance.

I mean, it'll still carry hefty demerits. And depending on circumstances you can still add a mandatory court appearance required charge if it meets that public safety threshold. Really any 50 over does but this just makes things easier I guess for everybody. Sort of. I'm not too sure what to think of it yet. I think its a plus in court reduction times, but shit for anybody getting a ticket.

[vengie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's even worse than you think. There will be no cross examinations in these hearings and the adjudicators decide what evidence must be submitted, they can decide what disclosure is given and the burden of proof is on the person who requested the review. Pretty much every single matter that can be dealt with administratively will now be reverse onus.

And they get paid either way.

[rage2]

I don’t mind paying, I just want to know if we can get 0 demerits. The fines aren’t expensive, it’s the insurance raising rates on a fleet of cars over 3 years that’s expensive.

[Shlade]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don’t mind paying, I just want to know if we can get 0 demerits. The fines aren’t expensive, it’s the insurance raising rates on a fleet of cars over 3 years that’s expensive.

I don't believe there is. Its either guilty plea, or not guilty plea within the 7 days. Then you pay to basically have it reviewed and go to court. Either way, like Vengie said, they will be getting their money.

[D'z Nutz]

The problem I have is if you've been given a ticket in error, you still have to pay it even if you are found innocent.

[Shlade]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The problem I have is if you've been given a ticket in error, you still have to pay it even if you are found innocent.

The only time that would be a problem is Photo Radar. They should abolish that garbage fully.

[FraserB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't believe there is. Its either guilty plea, or not guilty plea within the 7 days. Then you pay to basically have it reviewed and go to court. Either way, like Vengie said, they will be getting their money.

You don't go to court, there is no plea of not guilty. You get your notice of administrative penalty on the side of the road when the officer says you contravened an act and you can either apply to have the penalty reviewed or pay it. If you apply for a review, it goes to an adjudicator that isn't bound by judicial standards and dictates what can be submitted and how it is submitted. With the full onus on the person contesting the penalty and no opportunity to question the police officer.

[killramos]

I don’t like that you can be convicted of a crime without any avenue ti go before a judge. That’s my main beef.

[Twin_Cam_Turbo]

Does this apply only to traffic stops after Feb 1? I have a ticket going to court in April nearly two years after the written date.

[Shlade]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You don't go to court, there is no plea of not guilty. You get your notice of administrative penalty on the side of the road when the officer says you contravened an act and you can either apply to have the penalty reviewed or pay it. If you apply for a review, it goes to an adjudicator that isn't bound by judicial standards and dictates what can be submitted and how it is submitted. With the full onus on the person contesting the penalty and no opportunity to question the police officer.

Good to know, thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Does this apply only to traffic stops after Feb 1? I have a ticket going to court in April nearly two years after the written date.

I believe feb 1 onward is what it only applies to. Anything prior is still scheduled to proceed through court

[D'z Nutz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The only time that would be a problem is Photo Radar. They should abolish that garbage fully.

I mean the non-refundable fee to review it:

Under JTI, those seeking a review of a ticket of $299 or less will pay a non-refundable fee of $50, while challenging a fine over $299 will cost $150.

[jabjab]

If you got photo radar tickets in 2021 would you still be able to try to get them reduced?

[16hypen3sp]

In the thread linked below, the consensus was that you can still end up in court to fight or appeal.

https://forums.beyond.ca/threads/413...ht=adjudicator

[89coupe]

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...ine-challenges

[JRSC00LUDE]

Didn't read the thread but I assume there's still a bunch of morons supporting traffic fines as a "voluntary stupid tax" etc. and still actually believing it's for the public good?