Oakville woman no legal maverick, she says
September 12, 2009
Nick Aveling
TORSTAR NEWS SERVICE
There are a few things Jane Raham, alter ego "stunt-driving granny," would like to make perfectly clear.
First and foremost, she is not a legal maverick. It was never, repeat never, her intention to "take on the law," as some media outlets have suggested. "This granny did not, and would not, even though I felt a great sense of injustice," the 62-year-old woman said yesterday.
Raham found herself at the centre of a landmark legal ruling earlier this week, after an Ontario Court judge overturned her guilty verdict and ruled a section of the province's stunt driving law is unconstitutional. She had been charged under the law for passing a truck near Kaladar at more than 50 km/h past the limit – the speed at which drivers receive an automatic conviction.
As happy as she is, Raham said she can't take credit for the decision. That belongs entirely to a paralegal association, retained by Raham to help guide her through the court process, and lawyer Brian Starkman.
"The paralegal said the association really wanted to appeal this case because they thought the law was written badly," said Raham. "I said, `You can appeal it, but I'm going to pay the fine.' Based on what had happened, I had no hope that there was going to be any room to manoeuvre there."
Enter Starkman.
According to court documents, Raham's paralegal filed a motion that included the lawyer's submissions from a similar case. Fearing the paralegal was in over his head, Justice G.J. Griffin invited Starkman to take on the appeal.
Ten months later, Raham received a call from her paralegal, who congratulated her for making "provincial history."
"I said, `What?'"
Raham hadn't paid Starkman a cent; he did it for free. Nor had she heard from him until after the appeal was won.
"The law defines stunt driving in several different ways," Starkman said. "One of them is driving a car while you're not seated in the driver's seat. I'd say that's a pretty good definition of stunt driving.
"But why should driving 50 (km/h) above the speed limit be stunt driving? It's speeding. There's another section that deals with speeding, and it already includes penalties for going 50 past the limit and more."
At this point, what worries Raham even more than the stunt driving law is the lack of regulation around impound lots in Ontario, where private operators are free to charge what they please.
She said she was quoted a fee of $100 a day, a price she challenged after a local taxi driver told her it was far above average.
In the end, said Raham, she paid a total of $588 over the course of a week. The cost was knocked off the $2,000 fine she paid before the LPA launched its appeal. "If the municipality has enlisted operations to (impound vehicles), why aren't they regulated?" she asked.
The Spec
critter cartoon
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Jim Say's it best!
Political Grandstanding is what is!
September 09, 2009
There is none so blind as he who will not see
A Napanee Ontario Court judge, G. J. Griffin, has come to the only conclusion that anyone with even a passing familiarity with the English language, our legal system or basic fairness could come to - that the Julian Fantino street racing/stunt driving law which makes a police officer judge, jury and executioner in a certain class of speeding infractions is unconstitutional.
Of course it is. How did this ever get through our legislature? Does somebody have incriminating photos of our M.P.P.s or something?
But O.P.P. Sgt. Dave Woodford, who seems to have been saddled with the sad task of trying to defend the indefensible, says Fantino's minions are going to keep laying charges.
Sgt. Woodford was quoted on Breakfast Television this morning as saying that they believe it applies only to this individual case.
Um, Dave: I know you have more than a passing familiarity with the English language, and I understand the bit about you having to obey orders.
But do you - does anybody within the O.P.P - not have a passing familiarity with the concept of judicial precedent?
This law never stood a chance of passing judicial review.
And I would have thought that the role of our police forces is to defend and uphold our constitutional rights, not to deny them to the citizens they allegedly (and have been sworn to) serve and protect.
Never mind that the entire concept of speed limit enforcement is totally bogus.
It doesn't work.
It has never worked.
It CAN never work.
Why? Because no amount of speed limit enforcement we can begin to afford, especially of speed limits that are artificially low, will ever have a marked effect on the speeds we drive.
The fact that over 7,000 speeding charges were laid this past weekend alone proves that. If it DID work, why are we all still "speeding"?
And even if speeds could be reduced, there is zero evidence it would have any positive effect on our traffic casualty statistics.
Because speed per se is considered a factor - by the police themselves, according to the crash reports they are required to fill out - in only a relative handful (something around ten percent) of fatal or injury-causing crashes, vastly disproportional to the number of speeding charges laid (which comprise something around seventy percent of all traffic tickets issued).
Why don't the police lay charges against the driving behaviours that DO cause crashes?
Because they are all too busy playing "King Canute".
"Going with the flow" is the only speed that makes sense, the only speed at which we can all be safest.
And "the flow" is way faster than our current limits, at least on our freeways where most of this unconstitutional activity takes place.
Speed limit enforcement as it is currently implemented is a complete and utter waste of scarce police resources, as even a cursory examination of the statistics proves.
And a cursory examination of some of the comments that have been logged on at least one web site dealing with this issue reveals that many in the public don't get it either.
To wit: "Clearly this judge and those of you who disagree with this law have never had a loved one killed by dangerous speeding."
I don't know about Judge Griffin. But I have indeed had a loved one killed in a traffic incident, which by definition involved "speeding", although I guess my five-year old sister could have run into a stationary ("non-speeding") truck hard enough to kill herself.
That bit of family history is in fact one of the main reasons I campaign so hard for traffic law enforcement that IS effective, and not political grandstanding, which is the sum total of this inane - and now officially unconstitutional - law.
Can't anyone but Judge Griffin see that Emperor Fantino has no clothes?
Kenzie's blog
September 09, 2009
There is none so blind as he who will not see
A Napanee Ontario Court judge, G. J. Griffin, has come to the only conclusion that anyone with even a passing familiarity with the English language, our legal system or basic fairness could come to - that the Julian Fantino street racing/stunt driving law which makes a police officer judge, jury and executioner in a certain class of speeding infractions is unconstitutional.
Of course it is. How did this ever get through our legislature? Does somebody have incriminating photos of our M.P.P.s or something?
But O.P.P. Sgt. Dave Woodford, who seems to have been saddled with the sad task of trying to defend the indefensible, says Fantino's minions are going to keep laying charges.
Sgt. Woodford was quoted on Breakfast Television this morning as saying that they believe it applies only to this individual case.
Um, Dave: I know you have more than a passing familiarity with the English language, and I understand the bit about you having to obey orders.
But do you - does anybody within the O.P.P - not have a passing familiarity with the concept of judicial precedent?
This law never stood a chance of passing judicial review.
And I would have thought that the role of our police forces is to defend and uphold our constitutional rights, not to deny them to the citizens they allegedly (and have been sworn to) serve and protect.
Never mind that the entire concept of speed limit enforcement is totally bogus.
It doesn't work.
It has never worked.
It CAN never work.
Why? Because no amount of speed limit enforcement we can begin to afford, especially of speed limits that are artificially low, will ever have a marked effect on the speeds we drive.
The fact that over 7,000 speeding charges were laid this past weekend alone proves that. If it DID work, why are we all still "speeding"?
And even if speeds could be reduced, there is zero evidence it would have any positive effect on our traffic casualty statistics.
Because speed per se is considered a factor - by the police themselves, according to the crash reports they are required to fill out - in only a relative handful (something around ten percent) of fatal or injury-causing crashes, vastly disproportional to the number of speeding charges laid (which comprise something around seventy percent of all traffic tickets issued).
Why don't the police lay charges against the driving behaviours that DO cause crashes?
Because they are all too busy playing "King Canute".
"Going with the flow" is the only speed that makes sense, the only speed at which we can all be safest.
And "the flow" is way faster than our current limits, at least on our freeways where most of this unconstitutional activity takes place.
Speed limit enforcement as it is currently implemented is a complete and utter waste of scarce police resources, as even a cursory examination of the statistics proves.
And a cursory examination of some of the comments that have been logged on at least one web site dealing with this issue reveals that many in the public don't get it either.
To wit: "Clearly this judge and those of you who disagree with this law have never had a loved one killed by dangerous speeding."
I don't know about Judge Griffin. But I have indeed had a loved one killed in a traffic incident, which by definition involved "speeding", although I guess my five-year old sister could have run into a stationary ("non-speeding") truck hard enough to kill herself.
That bit of family history is in fact one of the main reasons I campaign so hard for traffic law enforcement that IS effective, and not political grandstanding, which is the sum total of this inane - and now officially unconstitutional - law.
Can't anyone but Judge Griffin see that Emperor Fantino has no clothes?
Kenzie's blog
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Ont. Liberals block committee probe of eHealth chiefs
Does this surprise anyone at all?
It's a joke what our elected leaders do, and then the opposition parties get all up in arms because they want they same power.
I thank the CBC for being on top of stories like this.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Ontario's Liberal government used its majority Tuesday to block opposition attempts to force top brass from eHealth Ontario to appear before a legislative committee.
The Conservatives and New Democrats wanted the committee to dig deeper into spending and expense abuses at eHealth, a problem that has since cropped up at other agencies and boards.
But the Liberals unanimously out-voted the opposition parties without offering an explanation.
The opposition has been complaining about eHealth since June, after it was learned the agency awarded $16 million in untendered contracts to consultants.
It was also discovered that some consultants who were paid up to $2,700 a day billed extra for snacks and beverages.
The government subsequently fired Sarah Kramer, CEO of the electronic health records agency. Kramer reportedly received nearly $317,000 in compensation, the equivalent of 10 months' salary.
The Liberals also promised an independent review of procurement practices at eHealth by PriceWaterhouseCoopers. But in July, Health Minister David Caplan quietly dropped the review at the request of eHealth, saying it would duplicate the work of Ontario's auditor general.
In August, Premier Dalton McGuinty denied intervening in Kramer's appointment over the objections of some civil servants.
McGuinty appealed to everyone paid with taxpayers' money, whether in government or at an arms-length agency, to follow the rules.
The premier has dismissed suggestions his government has lost control over the 600 agencies, boards and commissions, and warned against tarring all public workers with the same brush.
CBC.CA
It's a joke what our elected leaders do, and then the opposition parties get all up in arms because they want they same power.
I thank the CBC for being on top of stories like this.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Ontario's Liberal government used its majority Tuesday to block opposition attempts to force top brass from eHealth Ontario to appear before a legislative committee.
The Conservatives and New Democrats wanted the committee to dig deeper into spending and expense abuses at eHealth, a problem that has since cropped up at other agencies and boards.
But the Liberals unanimously out-voted the opposition parties without offering an explanation.
The opposition has been complaining about eHealth since June, after it was learned the agency awarded $16 million in untendered contracts to consultants.
It was also discovered that some consultants who were paid up to $2,700 a day billed extra for snacks and beverages.
The government subsequently fired Sarah Kramer, CEO of the electronic health records agency. Kramer reportedly received nearly $317,000 in compensation, the equivalent of 10 months' salary.
The Liberals also promised an independent review of procurement practices at eHealth by PriceWaterhouseCoopers. But in July, Health Minister David Caplan quietly dropped the review at the request of eHealth, saying it would duplicate the work of Ontario's auditor general.
In August, Premier Dalton McGuinty denied intervening in Kramer's appointment over the objections of some civil servants.
McGuinty appealed to everyone paid with taxpayers' money, whether in government or at an arms-length agency, to follow the rules.
The premier has dismissed suggestions his government has lost control over the 600 agencies, boards and commissions, and warned against tarring all public workers with the same brush.
CBC.CA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
No more taxes after HST...I promise!
They had No Choice!
They wore these or I took away thier toys for 7 days!
No kidding!
"Damn Street Racer"pays with Brusies
