[Cuz]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Uh, yeah, which is why one type of offence is listed in the Criminal Code and can only be enacted by Parliament while the other is in the Motor Vehicle Act and can be enacted by a provincial legislature.

In any case, things are allowed to be unconstitutional as long as they pass s.1 muster:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Maybe this gets over that hurdle, but it's a tough pill to swallow and I want to hear some courts say so, and tell me why, before I'm prepared to do so.

Time to apply the Oakes test, which is prescribed as follows:

1. There must be a pressing and substantial objective
2. The means must be proportional
   • The means must be rationally connected to the objective
   • There must be minimal impairment of rights
   • There must be proportionality between the infringement and objective

So is preventing deaths by speeding a pressing and substantial objective? It certainly is. However, is this of sufficient importance to limit one's Charter rights? I don't believe so, since speeding is only a regulatory offense, not an indictible one. But let's move to part 2 anyways.

Does impounding one's vehicle stop them from speeding. Sure in that vehicle at least so this provision seems to be rationally connected to the objective.

Is there minimal invasion of one's rights when their vehicle is impounded? I would say so, especially since property rights are not guaranteed under the charter (if they were I might feel differently). Remember only a piece of property is being seized, one isn't losing one's freedom for this breech.

Finally, is there proportionality between the infringement and objective? In R v. Oakes, Chief Justice Dickenson states " there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of sufficient importance." I do not believe there is proportionality in one excessively speeding (especially for a brief period of time) and having one's property impounded. Furthermore, as stated earier, I do not believe stopping excessive speeding is of sufficient importance to limit a Charter right.