Vladimir Rigenco, 19, found himself the target of a police probe several months ago, when a U.S. citizen called in a tip stemming from Mr. Rigenco’s post on an Internet forum for BMW fans. In it, the young man boasted about driving 100 kilometres per hour above the posted speed limit on Apple Blossom Drive, a residential road in Vaughan.

Now, Mr. Rigenco has been convicted, sentenced last week to a six-month driving prohibition and 12 months of probation. He must also complete a remedial driving program and pay a $1,000 fine.

Alan Ackerman, a expert in privacy and social media with the University of Toronto, said the young man’s “exhibitionistic comment” illustrates a fundamental knowledge gap about what is public and what is private.

“It looks like he didn’t really anticipate what that would set off,” Mr. Ackerman said.

York Regional Police Constable Serguei Barmakov, the arresting officer in Mr. Rigenco’s case, said it all began with a tip from an American citizen, which prompted police to visit the 5 Series Forums, an online discussion tool for BMW enthusiasts.

“As a result of that, we observed this character boasting his dangerous driving behaviour,” Const. Barmakov said. “A full-scale investigation was launched to [determine] whether there was any substance to the words.”

Mr. Rigenco’s posting indicated he was travelling 140 km/hr in a 40 km/hr zone on March 15, Mr. Barmakov said. Armed with those details — and with photos of the suspect and his vehicle taken from the forum — police canvassed the relevant area in Vaughan for witnesses, and found several.

“It appears that this was a repeated behaviour,” Const. Barmakov said, though the police probe only focused on the one incident.

Police charged Mr. Rigenco in April with dangerous driving, a criminal offence, but charges were later downgraded to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act in light of the 19-year-old’s guilty plea.

Const. Barmakov said this is the first time he has launched an investigation because of an online posting, calling it evidence of a new era.

Toronto-based traffic lawyer Volga Pankou noted that such a posting, on its own, would likely not be sufficient evidence in court to prove careless driving.

Read full article here

—–
Article:

A judge has found that Peel police officers conducted an unlawful strip search and then tried to cover it up, calling their testimony “evasive” and “troubling.”

The officers’ conduct prompted Justice June Maresca to throw out breathalyzer evidence in an impaired driving case earlier this month, citing a breach of Charter rights. The defendant, David McPhail, was acquitted as a result.

McPhail, 25, was arrested and charged with driving while impaired. He was brought to a Mississauga police station just before 5 a.m. on Sept. 21, 2008 and was made to strip completely naked. Nothing was found in the search.

The Ontario Court judge wrote that three officers knew the strip search took place. Two were in the room when it happened but took no notes. One initially testified it never happened.

“What can only be viewed as the attempted coverup of the strip search makes this conduct especially egregious,” Maresca wrote, adding the search was intended to “put (McPhail) in his place.”

A spokesman for the Peel police service said it will “look into” the judge’s findings.

“They’re allegations and we need to look into it,” said spokesman Sgt. Zahir Shah, adding that he is “not familiar with the nuances of the case.”

Strip searches are “inherently humiliating and degrading,” according to the Supreme Court, which has set out strict guidelines around them. Officers must have reasonable grounds to suspect the prisoner is concealing weapons or evidence; must also seek authorization from a supervisor; and keep proper records of the search.

In McPhail’s case, no records were kept and no approval was sought from a staff sergeant. In testimony that Maresca called “troubling,” one officer said McPhail was strip searched because a cellphone was found hidden in his shoe.

“(The officer) gave what can only be described as fanciful evidence of a cellphone he read about in a police bulletin that was capable of firing bullets,” she wrote.

Though one officer initially testified that McPhail was “compliant,” he later recanted and joined fellow officers in describing the young man as “cocky,” “arrogant” and “belligerent.”

“This evidence leaves the strong impression that the strip search was conducted in order to humiliate or intimidate,” McPhail, Maresca wrote.

McPhail’s lawyer, Ian Collins, said there should be a full, independent investigation into the officers’ actions. The crown attorney should also have reported what was revealed during the trial to the Peel police service, Collins said.

McPhail’s case comes to light one week after the Toronto Star reported that a paralegal is suing four Toronto police officers, the police services board and the attorney general of Canada, alleging he was strip searched and left naked in a cell for 48 minutes in the days leading up to the G20.

When are strip searches allowed?

Read full article here

“The case merits a full investigation from authorities independent of the Peel Regional Police,” said Mr. Collins, of Burrows Firm Traffic Lawyers Professional Corporation. “These police lost the conviction they sought, but there have been no other consequences. Without accountability for police misconduct, there is impunity.”

——
Article:

For the second time in less than a month, a judge has set free someone charged by Peel Regional Police, and ruled that officers lied and intimidated suspects.

The double blow from the judiciary has done little to shake the police service that patrols the fast-growing cities of Brampton and Mississauga to the west of Toronto: It has no plans to investigate or discipline the rogue officers.

* Judge finds that Peel police officers falsified evidence
* Peel police officers fabricated evidence in prostitution case: judge
* Peel officer’s drug conviction leads to perjury charge against superior

Defence lawyers who regularly try cases in the area call it the latest example of a troubling and cozy relationship between the police service and the local prosecutor’s office, which has yet to wipe away the decades-old stain of a high-profile wrongful conviction.

With 1,855 officers, the Peel force ranks behind only those of Toronto, Montreal and Calgary. It watches over a sprawling melting pot of new immigrants.

“Peel is a petri dish of massive growth and bad planning,” said defence counsel Robert Rotenberg. “They are playing catch up, going from being a small town to being a big city.”

In the latest ruling, a judge found that Peel Regional police officers stripped a suspect naked to show him who was boss, and provided false testimony to conceal their misconduct.

Earlier this month, a judge found that Peel officers had misled the courts into believing that a suspected pimp, Courtney Salmon, was caught with fake documentation to identify a 17-year-old stripper as over 18.

Peel has a reputation for such hard-line law enforcement. But many officers who are criticized by judges avoid criminal charges or internal discipline because the force tends not to review their conduct unless the local Crown office requests it, which it does not always do.

“While there is no formal process, where there are issues relating to a witness officer’s testimony, the Crown may bring it to the attention of police,” said Brendan Crawley, a spokesman for the Ministry of the Attorney-General. “It is done on a case by case basis, and we do not track this.”

Attempts to contact almost a dozen senior police and police services board officials in recent days were not successful.

Read Full Article here

We defend MTO charges in Halton, Peel, and Toronto Regions of Ontario, Canada. Protect your CVOR and your Fleet Insurance rates. We are not in the business of providing consulting, training or audit services. We are Trial Lawyers and Paralegals and we defend driving charges; in fact, that is all we do. We will seek to eliminate your MTO charges or reduce them in a meaningful way. Our focus is on serving Trucking Companies and the professional drivers that they employ, to defend MTO charges. No one will fight harder to keep your CVOR in shape than we will. We are a Lawyers Office, not a paralegal company, although we do employ both Lawyers and Paralegals. Paralegals at our Firm operate under the direction and supervision of experienced Trial Lawyers. We look forward to serving your interests.

Download: CVOR table and public guideline for commercial vehicle violations.

Contact us Today

s.130 Careless Driving Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her license or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than two years. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 130.

It is important (as with any accident charge) to make detailed notes as soon as possible after the incident. Please don’t forget to bring them with you when you attend the office for your free consultation. Coming to see us is absolutely the right thing to do.
Excerpt

“… I was amazed how efficiently and quickly my case was dealt with. I went from worrying about my license, to a complete withdrawal of all charges! Fantastic!”*
Andy T., Toronto

Car accidents can happen at any place and at any time. Many will result in careless driving charges. Careless driving carries 6 demerits and can in many circumstances result in the loss of insurance coverage. Many careless driving charges should never have been laid in the first place. Contributing factors may include road conditions or errors in judgement or momentary inadvertence. The good news is that most careless driving charges can either be defended completely or reduced to a minor offence, which in either case will result in substantial savings from an insurance perspective. Careless driving can indeed be beaten but it is not a traffic charge that should be taken lightly. Careless driving is the #1 traffic charge that we defend. We are the only firm of our kind in Ontario and we will take good care of you.

We generally only assign Lawyers to attend to careless driving trials. While we do employ both lawyers and paralegals, we believe that the significance of the charge and the legal analysis required for a proper defence demand the skills of a professional Trial Lawyer for careless driving tickets. Paralegals do not attend Law School and while we certainly respect the skills of the paralegals that we employ, we would strongly prefer to assign a lawyer to any case where the charge is careless driving, or one of the more serious charges under the highway traffic act or criminal code.

We charge fees comparable with the industry, but we always offer free consultations. Anyone charged with careless driving will find the Lawyers in our Firm to be very understanding and very professional. If you find yourself facing a careless driving charge call us immediately to book a free consultation. Our first objective is always first to seek to eliminate a careless driving charge completely. The fall back position is to consider negotiation and reduction from careless driving to a more minor offence. If for some reason neither option is possible, then a full trial may need to be conducted and we will be pleased to provide you with an assessment and legal opinion regarding your prospects in relation to your careless driving ticket. No one will fight harder to defend you than our Firm.

We know that facing a careless driving charge and a possible court proceeding can be a frightening prospect, even for someone who believes wholeheartedly in their own innocence. It is very important to let us manage a careless driving case from the very beginning as errors made early in procedure or in negotiation can be difficult or impossible to undo. Many people have hired an agent or undertaken their own defence and plead guilty to a lower charge thinking they have been successful. Often a full defence to the careless driving charge could have been successfully mounted. There are many potential defenses to careless driving charges.

If you are facing a careless driving charge in Ontario, let us help you. Call us today at (905) 847-2777; (416) 733-2200; or 1-877-733-2203 to schedule a free in-office appointment. Or, ask us about your careless driving charge and potential defenses via our online consultation form (go to contact page). Please do not plead guilty to careless driving without checking with us first. Careless driving is one of the most serious charges under the highway traffic act but we deal with them everyday. We are The Traffic Lawyers and we know Careless Driving charges.

*Past results are not necessarily indicative of future outcomes which will vary according to the facts of each case.

If there is a way to eliminate or reduce your charge, we will find it!

Every case is different, but the ramifications of a conviction are always dramatic and the cost of hiring proper representation is generally minor when compared to the costs that you might be facing…

“A big thanks for helping me… It was very reassuring to have the support of a firm that knows how to navigate the system.”*

Jane L, Toronto

• This is a very unique area of law;
• A legal opinion on a criminal driving charge requires the considered advice of a professional Lawyer, there are no exceptions.
• We offer free consultations, so that you will have absolutely nothing to lose by talking to us.
• After hearing your version and reviewing all of the disclosure, we will do our very best to lay out your options and the likelihood of success at trial.
• Whether you think that you are guilty or innocent, it is absolutely critical that you talk to a Lawyer before making a decision, or entering a plea.
• You will not be penalized for having Counsel with you in Court and you will not get credit for taking responsibility quickly without the assistance of a Lawyer.
• We will provide you with a quote for a fixed fee so you will know exactly what representation will cost; with no surprises.

Good people, make mistakes. In fact, most people charged with Impaired Driving are otherwise law abiding, honest people who unexpectedly find themselves in unfamiliar surroundings, facing a very difficult charge.

You should not assume that you are guilty just because you have been charged and you should not feel that you are morally obligated to plead guilty at the first opportunity in order to take responsibility for your actions. This is definitely one of the most serious decisions that you will ever have to make in your lifetime and you absolutely do need to speak to a Lawyer before deciding what to do.

We are certainly not advocating drinking and driving, but the reality is that it is actually legal to drink and drive in the Province of Ontario. The problem is that at some point legal behaviour can cross over a threshold into illegal behaviour and unfortunately there is no practical way of knowing with precision exactly when one has crossed that line. In addition, judgement becomes impaired as alcohol is consumed and the result, all too often, is that otherwise law abiding citizens find themselves in trouble with the law and facing an Impaired Driving or Over 80 charge.

The penalties for drinking and driving are severe and result in mandatory fines and automatic license suspensions. While custody would be extremely unusual for a first time offender, absent exceptional circumstances, jail time is automatic for subsequent offences. One’s ability to cross borders or to hold a job can be permanently compromised. Insurance rate increases can amount to tens of thousands of dollars.

This is not the time to choose your legal representation based on the lowest bidder; you need the best defence possible and the professional assistance of a Trial Lawyer that defends Impaired Driving charges for a living.

Whether you think that you’re guilty or innocent, we would like to invite you to visit our office to meet with us in person; but please call first, since meetings are by appointment only. Our Lawyers deal exclusively with Driving Offences and we will do our very best to determine whether your charge can be eliminated or reduced. The initial consultation is always free, so you have absolutely nothing to lose.

You will find us to be very understanding and professional. We are not here to judge you; we are here to help you. When everything seems to be unravelling, you absolutely do need a professional in your corner and one that has your best interests at heart. So, give us a call and ask to schedule your free half hour consultation, not with a paralegal, but with a real experienced Trial Lawyer.

We will do everything possible to assist you.

*Past results are not necessarily indicative of future outcomes which will vary according to the facts of each case.

The complexities of this offence make an initial consultation absolutely critical. With penalties that include $2000 – $10,000 in fines and up to 6 months in custody and up to a 2 year licence suspension, plus the inevitable loss of insurance coverage, this is not the time to shop for your legal representation based on the lowest bidder.

If you are facing a charge under s. 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act for Stunt / Racing, you have found the right Firm to defend you. We are The Traffic Lawyers® and we defend Stunt / Racing charges.

RACES, CONTESTS AND STUNTS

Racing, stunts, etc., prohibited

172. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Offence
(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her drivers licence may be suspended,
(a) on a first conviction under this section, for not more than two years; or
(b) on a subsequent conviction under this section, for not more than 10 years. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Determining subsequent conviction
(3) In determining whether a conviction is a subsequent conviction for the purposes of subsection (2), the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences or whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

10-year limitation
(4) A conviction that is more than 10 years after the previous conviction is deemed to be a first conviction for the purpose of subsection (2). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Police to require surrender of licence, detention of vehicle
(5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall,
(a) request that the person surrender his or her drivers licence; and
(b) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (b). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Administrative seven-day licence suspension
(6) Upon a request being made under clause (5) (a), the person to whom the request is made shall forthwith surrender his or her drivers licence to the police officer and, whether or not the person is unable or fails to surrender the licence to the police officer, his or her drivers licence is suspended for a period of seven days from the time the request is made. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Administrative seven-day vehicle impoundment
(7) Upon a motor vehicle being detained under clause (5) (b), the motor vehicle shall, at the cost of and risk to its owner,
(a) be removed to an impound facility as directed by a police officer; and
(b) be impounded for seven days from the time it was detained under clause (5) (b). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Release of vehicle
(8) Subject to subsection (15), the motor vehicle shall be released to its owner from the impound facility upon the expiry of the period of impoundment. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Early release of vehicle
(9) Despite the detention or impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section, a police officer may release the motor vehicle to its owner before it is impounded under subsection (7) or, subject to subsection (15), may direct the operator of the impound facility where the motor vehicle is impounded to release the motor vehicle to its owner before the expiry of the seven days if the officer is satisfied that the motor vehicle was stolen at the time that it was driven on a highway in contravention of subsection (1). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Duty of officer re licence suspension
(10) Every officer who asks for the surrender of a persons drivers licence under this section shall keep a record of the licence received with the name and address of the person and the date and time of the suspension and shall, as soon as practicable after receiving the licence, provide the person with a notice of suspension showing the time from which the suspension takes effect and the period of time for which the licence is suspended. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Duty of officer re impoundment
(11) Every officer who detains a motor vehicle under this section shall prepare a notice identifying the motor vehicle that is to be impounded under subsection (7), the name and address of the driver and the date and time of the impoundment and shall, as soon as practicable after the impoundment of the motor vehicle, provide the driver with a copy of the notice showing the time from which the impoundment takes effect, the period of time for which the motor vehicle is impounded and the place where the vehicle may be recovered. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Same
(12) A police officer shall provide a copy of the notice prepared under subsection (11) to the owner of the motor vehicle by delivering it personally or by mail to the address of the owner shown on the permit for the motor vehicle or to the latest address for the owner appearing on the records of the Ministry. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

No appeal or hearing
(13) There is no appeal from, or right to be heard before, a vehicle detention, drivers licence suspension or vehicle impoundment under subsection (5), (6) or (7), but this subsection does not affect the taking of any proceeding in court. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Lien for storage costs
(14) The costs incurred by the person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under this section are a lien on the motor vehicle that may be enforced under the Repair and Storage Liens Act. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Costs to be paid before release of vehicle
(15) The person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under subsection (7) is not required to release the motor vehicle until the removal and impound costs for the vehicle have been paid. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Owner may recover losses from driver
(16) The owner of a motor vehicle that is impounded under this section may bring an action against the driver of the motor vehicle at the time the vehicle was detained under clause (5) (b) to recover any costs or other losses incurred by the owner in connection with the impoundment. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Offence
(17) Every person who obstructs or interferes with a police officer in the performance of his or her duties under this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Intent of suspension and impoundment
(18) The suspension of a drivers licence and the impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section are intended to promote compliance with this Act and to thereby safeguard the public and do not constitute an alternative to any proceeding or penalty arising from the same circumstances or around the same time. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Forms
(19) The Minister may require that forms approved by the Minister be used for any purpose of this section. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Regulations
(20) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,
(a) requiring police officers to keep records with respect to licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments under this section for a specified period of time and to report specified information with respect to licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments to the Registrar and governing such records and reports;
(b) exempting any class of persons or class or type of vehicles from any provision or requirement of this section or of any regulation made under this section, prescribing conditions for any such exemptions and prescribing different requirements for different classes of persons or different classes or types of vehicles;
(c) defining the terms race, contest and stunt for the purposes of this section. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Definition
(21) In this section,
drivers licence” includes a drivers licence issued by another jurisdiction. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Report to Registrar
1. (1) A police officer who requests, under clause 172 (5) (a) of the Act, that a person surrender his or her drivers licence shall, before providing the person with the notice of suspension required by subsection 172 (10) of the Act, report the request and the following information to the Registrar:

1. The drivers name.
2. If known, the drivers address, date of birth and drives licence number.
3. The date and time of the request.
4. The location at which the alleged offence under subsection 172 (1) of the Act took place.

(2) The report under subsection (1) shall be made by any form of telecommunication.

(3) A police officer who has made a report under subsection (1) shall, as soon as practical after making the report, complete a form provided by the Registrar for that purpose and forward the completed form to the Registrar.

Definition, race and contest
2. (1) For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, race and contest include any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:

1. Driving two or more motor vehicles at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed and in a manner that indicates the drivers of the motor vehicles are engaged in a competition.
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to chase another motor vehicle.
3. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,
i. driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed,
ii. outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed, or
iii. repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity to other vehicles so as to advance through the ordinary flow of traffic while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed.

(2) In this section,
marked departure from the lawful rate of speed means a rate of speed that may limit the ability of a driver of a motor vehicle to prudently adjust to changing circumstances on the highway.

Definition, stunt
3. For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, stunt includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:

1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.
3. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to spin it or cause it to circle, without maintaining control over it.
4. Driving two or more motor vehicles side by side or in proximity to each other, where one of the motor vehicles occupies a lane of traffic or other portion of the highway intended for use by oncoming traffic for a period of time that is longer than is reasonably required to pass another motor vehicle.
5. Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle.
6. Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the drivers seat.
7. Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit.
8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,
ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the drivers sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,
iii. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway, or
iv. making a left turn where,

(A) the driver is stopped at an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal system in response to a circular red indication;
(B) at least one vehicle facing the opposite direction is similarly stopped in response to a circular red indication; and
(C) the driver executes the left turn immediately before or after the system shows only a circular green indication in both directions and in a manner that indicates an intention to complete or attempt to complete the left turn before the vehicle facing the opposite direction is able to proceed straight through the intersection in response to the circular green indication facing that vehicle.
Exceptions

4. (1) Despite section 2, race and contest do not include,
(a) a rally, navigational rally or similar event that is conducted,
(i) under the supervision of the Canadian Association of Rally Sport,
(ii) under the supervision of a club or association approved in writing by the Ministry, or
(iii) with the written approval of the road authority or road authorities having jurisdiction over the highway or highways used;
(b) motor vehicle owners engaged in a tour, scenic drive, treasure hunt or other similar motoring event in which the participants drive responsibly and in a manner that indicates an overall intention to comply with the provisions of the Act; or
(c) an event held on a closed course with the written approval of the road authority having jurisdiction over the highway, including any event lawfully using any of the trademarks CART, Formula One, Indy, IndyCar, IRL or NASCAR.
(2) Despite sections 2 and 3, race”, contest and stunt do not include any activity required for the lawful operation of motor vehicles described in subsections 62 (15.1) or 128 (13) of the Act, or the lawful operation of an emergency vehicle as defined in subsection 144 (1) of the Act.

Commencement
5. This Regulation comes into force on the later of the day section 21 of the Safer Roads for a Safer Ontario Act, 2007, comes into force and the day this Regulation is filed.

The only surprise in the fact that a small-town Ontario judge has declared the province’s street-racing law unconstitutional is that it took this long for a court to reach such an obvious conclusion. The law, which came into effect two years ago in the emotional wake of a series of fatal accidents caused by flagrantly irresponsible drivers racing their modified vehicles, always inhabited a grey area.

Section 172 of Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act prohibits citizens from driving their cars “in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager.” If a police officer suspects a driver of doing so, he or she can immediately seize the suspect’s licence and vehicle; upon seizure, the licence is automatically suspended for one week and the car is impounded for the same length of time. Pending conviction in court, the driver faces a minimum fine of $2,000 and can be imprisoned for up to six months.

Regulations define “stunt” as, among other things, driving at speeds of more than 50 kilometres an hour above the limit. With few exceptions, this one type of “stunt” has become the one and only way Section 172 is enforced, effectively turning a law to prevent street racing into a law to punish lead feet.

Such was the case of the grandmother in her sixties who accelerated to 131 kph to pass a semi-trailer truck in an 80-kph zone on a highway near Kingston. Upon overtaking the truck, she decelerated to 110 kph, but it was too late: She had been clocked by a police officer as doing more than 50 kph above the limit. Her car was impounded, her licence seized, and she was lumped in with the Vin Diesel wannabes who soup up their Subarus and race them down busy roads in a haze of testosterone and nitrous oxide.

Ontario court Justice Geoffrey Griffin overturned her subsequent conviction, saying the law violates Section 7 of the Charter, which specifies no one can be deprived of “life, liberty and security of the person except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” Since speeding is an absolute-liability offence, a person caught speeding is guilty regardless of intent or any mitigating factors, and imprisonment can result from a charge to which there is hardly any defence.

It’s a welcome ruling. In the two years since the law came into effect, as many as 15,000 otherwise law-abiding Ontario drivers caught driving excessively fast have been no less harshly treated than the deliberate, premeditated and entirely negligent street racers who see public roads as private playgrounds. The Crown plans to appeal, but the Ontario government should instead amend the statute and separate the overenthusiastic grandmother on her way to see her newborn grandchildren from the scofflawswho brought about this overreaching legislation in the first place.

From Monday’s Globe and Mail Last updated on Tuesday, Sep. 15, 2009 02:57AM EDT

Mr. Jaffer, husband of Tory MP Helena Guergis, was pulled over early Friday morning in the village of Palgrave, Ont., north of Toronto, when a general patrol officer noticed his breath smelled of alcohol, according to the Ontario Provincial Police. An investigation followed and Mr. Jaffer’s licence has been suspended for 90 days.

Mr. Jaffer, 37, was MP for the riding of Edmonton-Strathcona from 1997 until a surprise defeat in last year’s election.

He was born in Kampala, Uganda, and immigrated to Edmonton with his family as a boy to escape persecution under the iron-fist rule of Idi Amin.

He was just 25 when he first arrived in Parliament as an MP.

Ms. Guergis addressed the charges in a short e-mail Wednesday night. “I take this very seriously. I love my husband. I will wait for further information before I make any comment,” she wrote.

Mr. Jaffer is scheduled to appear in Orangeville criminal court on Oct. 19.

Mr. Jaffer was staying in Angus, Ont., in his wife’s southern Ontario riding of Simcoe-Grey when his vehicle was pulled over.

This is not Mr. Jaffer’s first brush with scandal. In 2001 his executive assistant resigned shortly after he impersonated Mr. Jaffer in a national radio interview. The assistant, Matthew Johnson, maintained that Mr. Jaffer had no knowledge of the hoax.

After several months in the political woodshed, Mr. Jaffer was re-elected in 2006 and named Conservative caucus chairman by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

He was a fun-loving, gregarious MP popular on the Ottawa party scene before romance blossomed with Ms. Guergis. They were married last Oct. 15 – one day after the federal election.

Mr. Jaffer took his defeat at the hands of NDP rival Linda Duncan hard. Hers is the only seat in Tory-blue Alberta not held by the federal Conservatives.

He has recently worked for Green Power Generation Corporation, which helps bring alternative energy technologies to market.

With a report from The Canadian Press

Kate Hammer: Globe and Mail