Coun. Paul Ainslie admits to receiving warning during R.I.D.E check

[GameBoy27]

http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/coun-paul-ainslie-admits-to-receiving-warning-during-r-i-d-e-check-1.1293517

Toronto Coun. Paul Ainslie announced Thursday he had received a warning under the Highway Traffic Act during a police R.I.D.E. spot check in early May and, as a result, was asked to surrender his licence for three days.

Ainslie, who represents Ward 43 Scarborough East, said he came clean about the incident because he saw false information on Twitter, with users stating that he had been charged with driving under the influence.

Ainslie stressed that the warning, which was issued on the evening of May 3, is not a criminal offence and he will not be charged in relation to the issue going forward.

“There were no criminal charges filed against me and no criminal charges will be brought forward,” he said. “I have never been charged with a criminal offence and I have never previously received a warning under the Highway Traffic Act.”

Under the provincial Highway Traffic Act, a driver who registers a blood alcohol level between 0.05 and 0.08 for the first time can lose their licence for three days.

Ainslie said he was pulled over during the check as he was returning home after having dinner with friends. During the dinner, Ainslie said he had drank “two or three glasses of wine,” adding he thought enough time had lapsed to drive home.

“I truthfully admitted to the officer when he asked me if I had any alcohol, I answered ‘yes,’” he said. “I was quite surprised when I registered the warning.”
He said that despite not being charged with any criminal offence, he felt he needed to clarify the details of incident.

“I felt that to be a responsible city councillor, to be responsible to my family and to be responsible in particular to the residents in Ward 43 that elected me, I needed to make a clear and factual statement that I was not charged with drinking under the influence,” he said.

“This incident will never be repeated, as I’ve now been reminded of a lesson which was taught to me long ago: that drinking and driving don’t mix.”

Wait until the tape recording comes out tomorrow of him denying the suspension ever happened. :eyebrows:

 

[red]

should we have drug tests for every councillor?

 

[Stoo]

This is such a non-newsworthy event.

 

[Mr Deeds]

This is such a non-newsworthy event.

Must have been a really slow news day

 

[GameBoy27]

This is such a non-newsworthy event.

Unless it happened to Ford...

 

[fmahovalich]

Correct, it's not the licence suspension for drinking and driving that is newsworthy. That could happen to anyone.

The news is in his lies to news reporters and the three week cover up, forcing him to finally call a news conference.

Certainly Ainslie did not want the item to be newsworthy, but as is often the case....it's the cover up that gets you!

 

[GameBoy27]

Correct, it's not the licence suspension for drinking and driving that is newsworthy. That could happen to anyone.

The news is in his lies to news reporters and the three week cover up, forcing him to finally call a news conference.

Certainly Ainslie did not want the item to be newsworthy, but as is often the case....it's the cover up that gets you!

Correct, when questioned a week or so ago by Sue-Ann Levy if he was pulled over for failing a breathalyzer he denied it, said it was not true, never happened. Well guess what, he lied and he did. No, he wasn't charged with impaired but he did blow warn and lost his licence for 3 days.

He thought he could get away with lying about it because nobody would find out as he only blew a warning. Well, someone did find out and three weeks after it happened he held a press conference. He certainly wasn't going to be up front about it and lied to cover it up.

Considering Ainslie was the guy who claimed Ford was drunk at the military ball and said "no" when asked if he'd stand behind Ana Bailao when she was arrested for impaired, I can see why he didn't want this one to get out.

 

[GameBoy27]

Here’s an edited transcript of the Sun’s interview with Councillor Paul Ainslie on May 16 about his RIDE stop at the start of the month that he now admits led to a three-day license suspension:

Part 1 over the phone:

Sun - Were you stopped in a RIDE program on Kingston Rd.?

Ainslie - “News to me.”

Sun - So this is not true?

Ainslie - “Not true.”

Part 2 in person in front of his city council office:

Sun - “You’re saying it is not true?”

Ainslie - “Nope, no. I’d like to know who is.”

Sun - You weren’t on Kingston Road and you weren’t stopped in a RIDE program?

Ainslie - “Nope.”

Sun - You weren’t stopped in a ride program?

Ainslie - “Nope.”

Sun - Your car wasn’t towed?

Ainslie - “Nope.”

Sun - “You didn’t get a three-day suspension?”

Ainslie - “Nope.”

Ainslie - “Who’s?”

Sun - “That I don’t know. Just following up.”

Ainslie - “I just want to know so I can go punch them.”

Part 3 in person in front of his city council office:

Sun - “As far as the May 4th (stop)?”

Ainslie - “You can’t tell me?”

Ainslie - “That’s really low.”

Sun - “You haven’t been stopped not even May 3rd or May 5th?”

Ainslie - “Nope. Nope.”

Sun - “No license suspension?”

Ainslie - “Nope.”

Ainslie - “All good?”

Sun - “Just had to check.”

Ainslie - “I love this place.”

 

[elmo]

I'm sure there's a couple of Somali folks with a video somewhere...

 

[Stoo]

Someone will probably correct me, but I suspect that this is a case of a politician taking advantage of semantics...

It's my understanding (as once explained to me by an OPP breath-tech qualified friend of a friend (!) that when someone blows at a road-side stop and blows at the .05 to .079 level they are given a choice. They can VOLUNTARILY give up their license and either have someone else drive their car, or have it towed OR they can go with the cops to the police station where a formal test is administered, three times, with a witness present and on a much more sophisticated/accurate device. This is, in part, an acknowledgement that the road side tests are are not always 100% accurate.

Most people would probably choose to take a cab, rather than risk a formal test and possible DWI charged... especially since there's a reasonable chance that there blood alcohol level is still increasing if they had just recently had their last drink.

If that interview transcript is accurate then he still lied about being stopped, but if he voluntarily surrendered his license, "technically" his license might not be considered "suspended". In any event, he wasn't charged with anything... hence my "non-event" comment.

Feel free to correct my understanding of these things since the explanation was given to me at least 5 years ago.

As an aside, this same cop also speculated on how much I could drink and still be legal... and it was a surprising amount.

 

[oldjones]

Correct, it's not the licence suspension for drinking and driving that is newsworthy. That could happen to anyone.

The news is in his lies to news reporters and the three week cover up, forcing him to finally call a news conference.

Certainly Ainslie did not want the item to be newsworthy, but as is often the case....it's the cover up that gets you!

Well said.

The coincidence of another politician's more colourful drug use and cover-up story being currently in the news likely gave the Councillor a very vivid lesson in the advantages of getting your own version out there with every detail you can. If you don't, others will be certain to do it for you. But it will be their version, not yours.

As to what Aislie lied about, I think stoo nailed it in his post: He lied about being stopped by a RIDE check, but the phrasing the interviewer used wasn't adequate to get at what else happened, and the Sun let him skate.

I believe the legal basis of the short-term license surrender\car impound is that it is the driver's choice whether to allow the officer to withdraw the driving privilege or to face a lawful demand for an evidence-standard breathalyser sample. Technically and actually, the driver is doing the wise thing she should have done back at the party by voluntarily handing over the keys and finding some other way home. That's how it is neither a suspension or a penalty.

Actually, the time for standing with Ana Bailao was not when she was arrested and charged and swearing (untruthfully, as she later admitted) innocence. Such self-aggrandizing displays of solidarity just make a spectacle out of the messy business of getting at the facts and getting justice done. Friendship and collegial support aren't showbiz commodities and the law isn't showbiz. The time she needed public support was afterwards, when she admitted her wrongdoing and pledged to do better. Many of us struggle with the difficult task of changing our lives. For that a bit of rah-rah and 'no one's alone' is never out of place.

Meantime Ainslie's wondering which of the cops on that RIDE post had Sue-Ann Levy on speed-dial.

 

[GameBoy27]

Someone will probably correct me, but I suspect that this is a case of a politician taking advantage of semantics...

It's my understanding (as once explained to me by an OPP breath-tech qualified friend of a friend (!) that when someone blows at a road-side stop and blows at the .05 to .079 level they are given a choice.

Warn is actually .05 to .099

If that interview transcript is accurate then he still lied about being stopped, but if he voluntarily surrendered his license, "technically" his license might not be considered "suspended". In any event, he wasn't charged with anything... hence my "non-event" comment.

According to the MTO, blowing a warn results in a "licence suspension".

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/impaired/

Fully-licensed drivers will face immediate roadside licence suspension for:

- Refusing a breath test.

- Registering a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.05 or more (this means there is 50 milligrams of alcohol in every 100 millilitres of blood).

If that interview transcript is accurate then he still lied about being stopped.

I'm quite certain the transcript is accurate as they've said there's audio to back it up.

As an aside, this same cop also speculated on how much I could drink and still be legal... and it was a surprising amount.

If Ainslie had 2-3 5 oz glasses of wine over the course of 2-3 hours with dinner and desert, chances are he wouldn't have blown a warning. I presume he lied about how much he had to drink, just like he lied to the reporters.

 

[nottyboi]

Warn is actually .05 to .099



According to the MTO, blowing a warn results in a "licence suspension".





I'm quite certain the transcript is accurate as they've said there's audio to back it up.



If Ainslie had 2-3 5 oz glasses of wine over the course of 2-3 hours with dinner and desert, chances are he wouldn't have blown a warning. I presume he lied about how much he had to drink, just like he lied to the reporters.

Nope warn is. 079....over that you are a criminal

 

[afterhours]

Nope warn is. 079....over that you are a criminal

ASD is calibrated to register "fail" only if BAC is 100mg or more, so Gameboy is quite correct.

 

[Klute]

Actually, the time for standing with Ana Bailao was not when she was arrested and charged and swearing (untruthfully, as she later admitted) innocence.

I don't recall Bailao swearing innocence. I recall her saying the incident was regrettable and that she would be pleading not guilty. Every defendant is entitled to be presumed innocent and to have prosecution make the case. You get charged, seek legal advice and decide how to proceed. Pleading not guilty does not mean one is saying they are innocent.