Ontario's Stunt Driving law ruled Unconstitutional

[Darren5.0L]

ww.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/693457

'Stunt-driving' grandma gets reprieve from judge

STEVE RUSSELL/TORONTO STAR
Sep 10, 2009 04:30 AM
Iain Marlow
Jason Miller
Staff Reporters

Jane Raham admits she panicked when she pushed on the accelerator to overtake the tractor-trailer.

The 62-year-old grandmother of four was in a steady column of traffic along a desolate stretch of Highway 7 near Kaladar, doing 90 km/h where the posted speed limit was 80 km/h. An OPP officer in an unmarked car was gliding along behind her when she pulled out to pass and hit the gas.

The officer registered her speed: 131 km/h, more than 50 km/h over the speed limit ? just enough to merit the grandmother, who volunteer teaches adult literacy courses, an automatic conviction for stunt driving under provincial law.

Now an Ontario Court judge has overturned her guilty verdict and ruled a section of Ontario's stunt driving law is unconstitutional.

Since stunt driving is considered an "absolute liability" offence, there is no possible defence.

A charge automatically leads to a conviction and, upon conviction, there must be a fine of between $2,000 and $10,000 ? a punishment that may also be combined with a maximum jail term of six months.
"I didn't even know what (stunt driving) meant in terms of what the repercussions would be," Raham said in an interview.

Raham was on her way home on April 29, 2008 to Oakville from Kanata, where her daughter had just given birth to twins. She said she had chosen Hwy. 7 because it has fewer trucks than Hwy. 401 and she is petrified of being caught in a truck's blind spot.

Raham moved into the eastbound lane to overtake a truck in front of her and sped up, then noticed it was speeding up as well. That's when she roared ahead.

"I did, out of a sort of fear reaction, pick up speed to get past him and back into the westbound driving lane," she later testified in court.

Her guilty verdict was overturned last Friday. "If one were asked to describe a stunt driver, the appellant would not immediately spring to mind," Justice G. J. Griffin wrote in his ruling.
Brian Starkman, the lawyer who successfully argued the appeal, said "the reason why the judge found this to be unconstitutional is because, on the one hand, the person is exposed to a possible jail sentence. And, on the other hand, he has no means to defend himself at trial."
There are various ways to be charged under Ontario's stunt-driving laws designed to target street racers. One of those is to drive 50 km/h over the speed limit; another is engaging in a contest with another vehicle.

Griffin's ruling does not encroach upon the OPP's ability to nab and charge reckless street racers. It just means convicting someone on excessive speed alone ? as in Raham's case ? is now unconstitutional.

However, OPP officers are still going to hand out stunt-driving tickets and the Ministry of the Attorney General is planning an appeal.
"Our position is that the street-racing provisions are constitutional and that they are an important public safety initiative," ministry spokesman Brendan Crawley said.

"We will be seeking leave to appeal the decision of the Ontario Court of Justice. In the interim, people should understand that the street-racing provisions are still in effect and police can still lay charges."

James Morton, a lawyer who is past president of the Ontario Bar Association, said the ruling is "important across the province" and noted it is binding on all Justices of the Peace, though not on Ontario Court judges.

But he said the Crown should have fought harder.

"The statute could have been upheld under Section 1 of the Charter that talks about a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society," Morton said. "But for reasons I'm unaware of, the Crown conceded that it could not be so upheld. And I thought that was surprising."

Sgt. Dave Woodford of the Ontario Provincial Police said the judge's ruling was highly specific and that the stunt-racing law has been instrumental in reducing fatalities since it came into effect in September 2007.

"We're continuing to do business as normal," Woodford said.

Last year, the number of fatalities on OPP-patrolled roads dropped to 322 from 451 in 2007.

As for Raham, she recalls being shocked when the officer said she was charged with stunt driving.

She said she feels stunt driving means someone is driving recklessly on the highway and causing danger to other people. "I believe the police should take those people off the road, impound their car and give them a stiff penalty," she said.

Still, even with the case seemingly behind her, there is one lasting effect: Her grandchildren continue to tease her by calling her "stunt driver."

[GT4MT]

I'm wondering if the outcome in court would have been different if the driver had been a thirty year old man driving a GT500 ....... I'm sure that this case is merely the tip of the iceberg.

Nice to see though - thanks for posting that up Darren. There are more twists and turns in that section of the Highway Traffic Act than at Laguna Seca, and likely more abuse of the powers it grants as well.

[Intmdtr]

well if thats the case, i know a few people that could fight to get there money back.....

[klaw]

funny thing is that she admitted that the other driver sped up so then she sped up - that kinda sounds like racing to me - lol

[Darren5.0L]

Originally Posted by GT4MT

I'm wondering if the outcome in court would have been different if the driver had been a thirty year old man driving a GT500 ....... I'm sure that this case is merely the tip of the iceberg.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion is what I figure.

The main things to take from this is that legal precedent is being set. They have not gotten rid of the street racing legislation, however now steps are being made in the right direction of fair laws. Perhaps a few more cases like this will erode the public's tolerance for roadside arbitration by law enforcement personnel.

I am not one to claim an anarchist's point of view here, illegal activities are just that, and should have consequences, but these consequences must be proportional to the act or they simply will not work.

Excessive speeding is already covered by the traffic act, as are many other subjects which "street racing" (real or perceived) can fall under, it is purely a political move to demonize the event with "special legislation". In the same breath as banning cell phone use while driving, it simply falls under careless operation of a MV, which any officer could cite a motorist for. Targeted laws are simply to appease the public, if the police do not enforce the current laws then why would targeting it make things any better.

[GT4MT]

Actually, I hate to say it, but if memory serves me correctly, there has been a recent amendment to include cell phone use specifically as a ticketable offense - give me some time to back that up with some facts though.


You are 100% accurate Darren, with your statement that it was a political move to "demonize the event with special legislation". When the Bill was drafted, there had been a rash of deaths in Ontario (mostly Toronto I believe), due to traffic incidents where street racing was likely the contributing factor, coupled with bad judgement and a lack of consideraton for the potential consequences.


It was a no-brainer to pass - it's tough to argue against it when dead parents and orphaned children are being paraded around. I'm not trying to come across as coarse or uncaring, and certainly don't intend to appear callous to someones loss, but a lot of public perception was based on the emotions that go hand in hand with such tragedy. The government was going to do something dammit, and they were going to show the public this was serious business and would be dealt with accordingly.

Before you could say "Instant Roadside Justice", (or targeted laws if you will), the Bill was passed.


( To clarify, if it's even an issue, I wasn't pointing any fingers specifically when I cited the example of the thirty year old man with the GT500. ANY man in ANY performance car would have sufficed.)

[red82gt]

The instant roadside justice is the part of the law that I have a problem with. Judges are appointed to make decisions and to carry out any punishment deemed necessary and are chosen due to their prudent track record and impartial point of view. In BC, you get your day in court if you are found in violation of the provinces street racing legislation, I've got no problem with that.

[Darren5.0L]

Originally Posted by GT4MT

Actually, I hate to say it, but if memory serves me correctly, there has been a recent amendment to include cell phone use specifically as a ticketable offense - give me some time to back that up with some facts though.

I suspect is would be in Ontario, it just happened to spring to mind as certain places in Alberta just adopted a similar cell phone specific ban

[GT4MT]

The exact section of the HTA deals with careless driving (which used to be the charge prior to the Street Racing law), but here's a blurb from the MTO site:

There are a number of potential driver distractions and these may include:

• technology devices such as cell phones, laptops and hand-held organizers;
• reading maps or other material;
• grooming activities;
• eating or drinking;
• note taking;
• conversing with passengers;
• tending to children or pets; and
• adjusting in-vehicle controls (radio, climate control and CD player)

Police can charge drivers with careless driving if they do not pay full attention to the driving task. If you are convicted of careless driving you will automatically receive six demerit points, fines up to $1,000 and/or a jail term of six months. In some cases, your licence may be suspended for up to two years. This is one of Ontario's toughest rules of the road.

[Tumbleweedz]

These laws ( cell phone and street racing ) make no sence to me at all.
First off cell phones- They want you to now use a hands free kit if you are going to be using your cell phone while driving, but it is against the law to drive with headphones ie ipods. But most hands free units are just that headphones. I know mine is.
Second. What constitutes as racing. Also how come it basiclly comes down to what price bracket your lawyer is in. The Bigger dollar lawyers get people off, public defenders, your screwed.

[DageonYar]

Originally Posted by GT4MT

The exact section of the HTA deals with careless driving (which used to be the charge prior to the Street Racing law), but here's a blurb from the MTO site:

You better hope the kids in the back of that minivan aren't cold... Because you can't talk to them or turn up the heater.

[smoothy]

Originally Posted by Tumbleweedz

These laws ( cell phone and street racing ) make no sence to me at all.
First off cell phones- They want you to now use a hands free kit if you are going to be using your cell phone while driving, but it is against the law to drive with headphones ie ipods. But most hands free units are just that headphones. I know mine is.
Second. What constitutes as racing. Also how come it basiclly comes down to what price bracket your lawyer is in. The Bigger dollar lawyers get people off, public defenders, your screwed.

Highway Traffic Act - O. Reg. 455/07

other than the 50km/h rule stunt driving/racing includes (among others)
-racing another vehicle (duh)
-driving with someone in the trunk
-driving with noone in the drivers seat
-when the traffic light turns green, making a left turn ahead of cars going straight in the other direction
-zipping in and out of lanes in close proximity to other traffic
-slamming on the brakes with someone behind you just to piss them off
-speeding up or swerving when someone goes to pass to prevent them from passing
-spinning your tires on purpose
-doing doughnuts on purpose
-doing a wheelie

As for the cell phone, headsets are generally for one ear, as opposed to ipod buds which block hearing in both ears (then you can't hear the fire truck/cop car/locomotive horn)

[Tumbleweedz]

Well, if I got pulled over and they wanted to charge me with street racing just becauce I've put someone in my trunk, I'd be livid. LoL And I never put anybody in my back seat. It the trunk or nothing. LoL
My cell phone, a Sony Ericson comes with a stereo headset, I've put in a 2 gig card and can load it up with hours and hours of music. Which is the only real answer I've found to fix the crappy MACH stereo that came installed in the dash. And Its commericial free. LoL

[TheDutchGun]

Im all for the cell phone law. People drive like retards when they're on the phone.

As for the stunt driving law, it should be applied with discretion. Unfortunately, most cops are just D-students with a sudden taste of power.