Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15
So the window tint got there magically? Someone had to install or replace it. At no point in that section does it mention anything about the car being operated at the time.
|
Okay. First of all, an officer cannot ticket you for an offense he did not witness. For example, if an officer knows you left Calgary at noon, and he knows you somehow made it to Edmonton by 1:45, obviously you were speeding... but you cannot be issued a speeding ticket, unless he actually saw you exceeding the speed limit.
Second, these are absolute liability offenses, meaning there's no element of intent. As a result, it becomes even more important to establish that the person committed the ACT in question. Now, I don't install my own window tint (or wouldn't if I had it), I would have a shop do it for me. They would be guilty of an offence under s.70(1). I would not, because I did not "install, replace or cover" anything - I paid a shop for a service. Or maybe I didn't even do that - maybe I bought the car used, and the person before me had it installed. Either way, I didn't commit the actus reus described in the provision.
So, to sum up, as an officer cannot, by looking at your car, determine that you committed the act in question, he cannot cite you under that provision. Moreover, even if he was completely sure you HAD done it, without evidence (i.e. his witnessing the act in question), he can't cite you for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Where I have no idea is how a parking lot is treated. Does this meet the criteria of being operated? I don't know.
|
Probably not, although there is an Ontario case that said "[Accused] was operating that motor vehicle in the act of parking that vehicle, and leaving it parked, while that vehicle was insured. Since that vehicle belonged to him, and he had full control over that vehicle, both before and after it was an insured vehicle, his leaving that vehicle in a parked position after it became uninsured on a highway constitutes the operation of a motor vehicle in the context of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act."
But that's a case where you had a Court pretty clearly trying to massage the law to fit facts. Realistically, the TSA differentiates between "operate" and "park" in a number of areas (see s.53) indicating that they're two different things. And really, a court will often just go back to the plain meaning rule in interpreting statutes like this. In order to "operate" a car you at least need to be inside the car and have it running, from a common sense perspective.