Ontario Planning to Shut Down Courts

[TeeJay]

I am VERY surprised this did not get posted anywhere (or else my search skills plain suck)
This would have loads of implications for hobbyists & providers alike

Basically they are eliminating the court process for all non-criminal charges
So anything from a speeding ticket to a bylaw infraction would be handled online (which means more money + convictions for the province)


Ontario is looking to replace court process with an "independent expert" decision maker for provincial offenses and allow only online submissions, no direct appearances and no questioning of witnesses or police officers.

Here's how it will change:

Current in-court, paper-based system for minor POA infractions

Option to pay the fine or request a trial in court to dispute the charge.

Paper forms must be completed to dispute charges and the defendant may be required to attend the municipal court office in person to request a trial.

Trial process requires the participation of a justice of the peace, prosecutor, enforcement officer, etc.

Defendant and/or his or her representative must attend the trial in-person.


Ontario’s vision for an online administrative monetary penalty system for minor POA infractions

Option to pay penalty immediately or elect to dispute it through online system.

Information needed to initiate and support dispute is entered online.

Dispute resolution process managed by unbiased expert decision maker.

Convenient 24/7 access to online system that provides information, guidance and access to unbiased expert decision-makers. No need to travel to a courthouse.


Public input is between March 3rd to April 14th.


http://news.ontario.ca/mag/en/2015/...less-expensive-ways-to-challenge-tickets.html
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/poa_consultation.asp

 

[fuji]

This seems like a good PRETRIAL arbitration process, the expert could advise both sides what a trial would result in and push for an out of court settlement. But you should still have the option to go to trial, or at least to appeal.

 

[Aardvark154]

I am VERY surprised this did not get posted anywhere (or else my search skills plain suck)
This would have loads of implications for hobbyists & providers alike

While I leave definitive comment to those who practice in Ontario, from just looking at this I don't believe it would have many if any C-36 implications at all.

Seemingly it would be traffic tickets and municipal bylaw infractions as well as some other Ontario Provincial Offences Act offenses.

 

[IM469]

Dispute resolution process managed by unbiased expert decision maker.

I might be overly suspicious of politicians and government bureaucrats but how come I see yet another shake down of your average Joe to get whatever is left of his hard earned money left after taxes, sales tax, gas tax, property tax, license & plate fees, etc. How long before this independent decision maker is put on a quota system ? I'm still amazed traffic cops haven't been given credit card machines to just get the money faster from your pocket to the governments.

 

[black booty lover]

This would have loads of implications for hobbyists & providers alike

Basically they are eliminating the court process for all non-criminal charges
[/url]

This won't have any implications on hobbyist or providers at all. This is for traffic court, not criminal court. You said yourself...

 

[TeeJay]

While I leave definitive comment to those who practice in Ontario, from just looking at this I don't believe it would have many if any C-36 implications at all.

Seemingly it would be traffic tickets and municipal bylaw infractions as well as some other Ontario Provincial Offences Act offenses.

Child support cases, divorce, child welfare, & yes even C36 since it is not a criminal offence
Essentially if passed we lose our right to a trial + confront witnesses
Now each person needs to write an essay online (which let's face it, does cause those of lower education, esp minorities, to get convicted more often since they do not write as eloquently)

The other side of the coin is the high end pros who will simply pay more fines and live without fear of police raiding the place

 

[nobody123]

Now each person needs to write an essay online (which let's face it, does cause those of lower education, esp minorities, to get convicted more often since they do not write as eloquently)

Setting aside the irony of such an unparsably awkward shitshow of a sentence discussing "eloquence".... am I reading this correctly? All people with lower education do not write as eloquently, but especially minorities of lower education do not write as eloquently? Wow. A semi-literate hypocrite, a homophobe AND a racist. You really are adorable, you!

 

[GPIDEAL]

Child support cases, divorce, child welfare, & yes even C36 since it is not a criminal offence
Essentially if passed we lose our right to a trial + confront witnesses
Now each person needs to write an essay online (which let's face it, does cause those of lower education, esp minorities, to get convicted more often since they do not write as eloquently)

The other side of the coin is the high end pros who will simply pay more fines and live without fear of police raiding the place

You better do your homework before you post shit.

Bill C-36 is an act to amend the CRIMINAL CODE.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=Bill&Doc=C-36&File=4

 

[AK-47]

I like this idea.

It will save time and money for both sides

 

[fuji]

I like this idea.

It will save time and money for both sides

I think so too, provided you can go to a real court if you don't think the expert arrived at a fair result. In that case it would be an arbitration process similar to what sits in front of the labour board, which successfully deflects most cases from trial by having an expert assess the chances of success and recommend a settlement.

Going to a real trial should be costly, say, a $250 filing fee, but should be an option for those who want to fight it.

I think such a system would save lots of money and time for everyone while retaining the ultimate guarantee of a fair trial.

I'm not comfortable imposing even small sentences without any recourse to a court, though.

 

[fuji]

Example, Ontario passes a law imposing a $500 fine for driving with a hijab. Under this expert system, what is the path to appeal the law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional?

There has to be recourse to the courts.

 

[mandrill]

TeeJay, this is just petty court for bylaw and traffic infractions. It has nothing to do with Family Court, Bill c-36 or any other case that doesn't involve running a red light or throwing litter in a playground or such like minor stuff.

 

[Aardvark154]

I think so too, provided you can go to a real court if you don't think the expert arrived at a fair result.

Along the lines of the system in a number of U.S. States. You can waive an appearance and pay the fines for traffic offenses by mail, and if you contest the charge, request a court appearance.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Example, Ontario passes a law imposing a $500 fine for driving with a hijab. Under this expert system, what is the path to appeal the law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional?

There has to be recourse to the courts.

Yes. It would be similar to going to court on a motion for delay of trial per Section 11(b) of the Charter (after filing Form 4F, Notice of Constitutional Question).

 

[GPIDEAL]

Along the lines of the system in a number of U.S. States. You can waive an appearance and pay the fines for traffic offenses by mail, and if you contest the charge, request a court appearance.

We already have that here. What this change does, is subject your dispute to an online arbitrator instead of going to court.

 

[GPIDEAL]

This seems like a good PRETRIAL arbitration process, the expert could advise both sides what a trial would result in and push for an out of court settlement. But you should still have the option to go to trial, or at least to appeal.

I agree but we need more info (I haven't checked the full consultation document). Is it binding arbitration (ergo, you would waive your right to a trial, if you elect to dispute and subject your minor offence to an online arbitrator)?

Addendum: I looked at the consultative document but it's not very detailed as to the proposed system, but they do make reference to 'online dispute resolution system' which seems like an online resolution hearing option (digital plea bargaining) or pre-trial arbitration like you say. I've emailed them my question.

 

[Aardvark154]

We already have that here. What this change does, is subject your dispute to an online arbitrator instead of going to court.

From what little I know it doesn't sound like such a marvelous concept to me.

 

[GPIDEAL]

From what little I know it doesn't sound like such a marvelous concept to me.

It's great if it's a dispute resolution process before the last kick at the can - trial. Who wants to take time off work if you don't have to for that?

 

[Keebler Elf]

I like it. Time to put a stop to guilty people clogging up the system to avoid paying what they owe.

 

[Intrepid416]

No matter if it is traffic or otherwise, one should always have the right to trial. Can't believe taking that away would survive Charter challenge. Nor should one have to pay to defend oneself.