Possible Defences

Remember to tell us your success stories so that we may all benefit. I will regularly update this section. defences@FightTheMeterMaid.com

Guilty with an explanation

Under the Provincial Offences Act, parking violations do not have this option. However the act does say that:

“The set fine is a level of fine which is somewhat ABOVE the minimum and is designed to be an average amount which would be appropriate for the routine violation and the routine violator.”

This allows for the argument that the set fine does not represent the circumstances as the incident was not a “routine” violation and you are not a routine violator and therefore may request that a relevant LOWER fine be levied.

Errors on the ticket

“It is likely that only the following major defects would lead a justice to conclude that a [ticket] was not complete and regular on its face:

My ticket does not have a 'contrary to (bylaw or code)' entered. Does this make it invalid?

Even though there may be an X beside the type of infraction and its code, this is not a by-law. Codes are not laws but refer to specific by-laws. One could argue that the ticket “does not identify an offence known to the law, and therefore that it had not been properly ‘completed’ …”

If this “argument were to be accepted, the court … might conclude that it had no jurisdiction to amend the charge by inserting the pertinent by-law number”, and the ticket would have to be thrown out of court.

if the prosecutor requested such an amendment to be made.”

Unfortunately “subsection 16(2) allows the officer to issue a [ticket] without including a reference to the number of the specific bylaw that creates the offence.” This means that in order for this defense one would have to challenge subsection 16(2).

This lack of an indicated by-law is brought up a second time in the instructional manual on part II of the Provincial Offences Act this time states that:

It is also possible to conclude “…that a [ticket] completed without a by-law number was null and void, so that the court would have no jurisdiction to hold a trial of the alleged infraction.”

Unfortunately this too has been written into the provincial code in subsection 17(3) which complements 16(2a) and “provides that a [ticket] is not insufficient or irregular only because it does not identify the specific by-law which creates the offense alleged in the ticket.”

Again one would have to challenge the legality of this section.

It must be noted that once a not guilty plea has been entered the court must inform you of the by-law that you are alleged to have broken.

Improper notice

In the provincial offences act part II which governs parking infractions, it says that “The [ticket] must inform the person charged of the place (in general terms) where a trial will be held if he pleads not guilty and requests one”

From what I can see on my tickets, it does not state where a trial will be held. This seems like a weak defense, but it is something and may make ALL tickets invalid.

Mistake of fact

Mistake of fact refers to a situation where you believed that you were parked according to law, but in fact were interpreting or understanding incorrectly the applicable law.

Often mistake of fact is confused with ignorance of the law which is not a valid defense. To illustrate further, consider the example of street parking where there are 4 different signs on 2 posts dealing with no stopping at certain times of the day, or certain times of the month, during snow, etc.

Let us consider 2 cases:

The first is a Mistake of Law (or ignorance is no excuse) and is not defensible. The second is Mistake of Fact and is a valid defence as the defendant operated from an unintentional misunderstanding of fact.

If I drive away before the ticket is placed on my car, is it valid?

No. By signing the bottom of the ticket, the issuing officer is declaring that not only does he believe that you committed the infraction, but it certifies that you have been served in a proper fashion. This means either on your person or by placing it on a conspicuous place on your car. By driving away he is unable to serve you properly and therefore the ticket is invalid.

Wrong officer appearing in court:

This is courtesy of Chris, who wrote about his experience:

"There were 4 cases heard before mine and I noticed it was the same Blue Hornet Parking Cop answering to all the cases. After the 3rd case, I realized looking at my ticket stub that the cop up on the stand had a different badge number than the two found on my ticket. I started to relax as it looked like my cop wouldn't show up. Sure enough, my case was next and when the Prosecutor calls the parking cop up to answer for my ticket, guess who comes forward. The same cop!!!!

Anyways, I let the case proceed and when my turn for questioning came up I asked the cop if his badge number had changed in the last while. He answered no. Hence, I produced my ticket stub as evidence that this wasn't the right cop who wrote my ticket. However, he did have all the correct details about the street and my car. Both the prosecutor and judge looked at it to which the judge declared the ticket void as the cop was not the right one (Hmmmmmmmm). I tried to meet eyes with the judge to thank him on his decision but he wouldn't look at me. Clearly embarrassed. The prosecutor asked me why I just didn't stop the trial from the start. I answered "What, and miss the opportunity to watch you guys make a fool of yourselves? No way".

I'm of the opinion that what these cops do is pass off their notes/ticket books to fellow officers to do battle in court for them in the hopes that the defendents don't realize that the officer in court is not the same one that wrote the ticket. I just so happened to figure the system out. I wonder how many others have figured this out also?"

Officially induced error

“The defence of ‘officially induced error’ is available as a defence to an alleged violation of a regulatory statute where an accused person has reasonably relied upon the erroneous legal opinion or advice of an official who is responsible for the administration or enforcement of that particular law. In order for the accused to successfully raise this defence he must show both he or she relied on the erroneous legal opinion of the official and that the reliance was reasonable.”

I see this defence being used in regards to signs that are unclear or when they do not exist. For instance if one were ticketed for parking within 9m of a crosswalk, yet the crosswalk was not signed, and was merely 2 white lines in the road. One can argue that it is unreasonable to assume that 2 white lines on a road make a crosswalk.

Disclaimer

All quotes are taken from Parking infractions/ AN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL FOR PART II OF THE PROVINCIAL OFFENCES ACT, by the Ministry of the Attorney General. This book is available at the Urban Affairs Library at 55 John St. The stack number is 345.71302 P68.

All interpretations are my own. I am not a lawyer, and the opinions on this page should not be taken as legal advice.