City tried to stop the Charter Challenge before it even began.
In what has to be either an incredible coincidence, or a direct attempt to
stop a Challenge to the Parking Exemptions to the Mayor, MLA's, and the rest of
Mayor Allan Lowe's "political friends", no commissionaires showed up on the day the
Constitutional Challenge went to court.
When no commissionaire shows up to "testify" about the time and place of
the issuing of a ticket, the matter is thrown out on the grounds of "lack of
The City [and Province] was hoping that the Charter Challenge would stop
here.... however the Challenge went through because the details of the summons
were not challenged in order that the court would be forced to deal with the
Charter Challenge. Unfortunately [as you see by the Supreme Court and BC Court
of Appeal judgments], the City found other devious ways to keep these unlawful Acts and
Bylaws in place.
Please also note that the
City has approximately 3800 meters, all charging about a dollar per hour. That
means that the City makes up to 15 Million dollars per year through meters
alone: Adding fines and sales from confiscated vehicles, the total rises to
something approaching 100 Million plus.
So how much does it cost to buy off a Judge? Clearly there is
plenty for all.
Or is there? Perhaps judges are not so easily
corrupted... hence, the Attorney
General of BC is taking judges completely out of the
Bylaws to be
enforced municipally instead of provincially: Plant
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
BC Attorney General Geoff Plant
VICTORIA (CP) - Disputes over parking tickets or animal licensing infractions
could soon be settled by the same local municipalities that wrote the law, as
opposed to impartial provincial court judges, Attorney General Geoff Plant
confirmed October 7.
The "Local Government Bylaw
Enforcement Act", introduced in the British Columbia legislature, is designed
to deny due process and "allow provincial courts to focus on more important
cases", Plant said. Plant said it is "no longer justified to put a $25 parking
ticket complaint before a judge that's being paid $160,000 a year". "We need
to rethink our justice system in terms of process expectations," he said. "I
think that $25 parking tickets are not the same as murder charges," he said.
"The court inevitably has more and more important things to do than deal with
$25 parking tickets."
A pilot project to
establish the business case for a municipally-run dispute system will be set
up in some Vancouver-area communities within the next six months or one year,
"We do believe that we
should be able to find a way to make this work across the province at some
point over the next couple of years," he said.
Until now, British
Columbia's provincial courts have handled all disputed bylaw offences from
parking and dog licensing to more serious offences involving health and
safety issues, he
[What an interesting
statement from the Crown's representative of Law enforcement!! It happens to
be completely at odds with what their lawyer said in R. v. Jebbett. The Crown
lawyer, in that case, argued that parking bylaws were indeed about safety.
Perhaps they were confused? Perhaps they were lying?]
Plant said the bylaw
disputes have contributed to backlogs. He denied the new law was yet another
step of the government to download court costs to municipalities, and
ultimately to property owners.
Plant said the system would
end up paying for itself because communities will use increased revenues from
parking tickets and other bylaw infractions to support the system set up to
protect revenues from parking tickets and other bylaw infractions. Essentially
we have the municipality running the whole show from writing the bylaw, to
issuing tickets, to settling disputes; so expect large increases in parking
fines once we get the system in place.
The Union of B.C.
Municipalities issued a statement wholeheartedly supporting the new law. "Our
bylaws will now be more enforceable and disputes will be dealt with promptly
and fairly, from our perspective" said president Frank Leonard, who is also
the mayor of Saanich, and is exempt from all parking bylaw enforcement, as is
Attorney General Geoff Plant.
Plant said the law will
result in bylaw enforcement officers writing more tickets because they will no
longer worry about the cases getting bogged down in an overloaded court
Leonard said the ticket
revenues "won't just be used as a cash cow for local governments".
"The goal of bylaw
enforcement is compliance, not tickets," he said. "What neighbours want to
hear is we solved the problem."
[Yeah right, Geoff! I'm
sure the fact you collect millions of dollars from parking enforcement has no
baring whatsoever on your decisions. Pity, though, that you don't mind
violating the law in the process.]
© Copyright 2003 BC Revolution - R. Polton.
[Note: Just in case you
missed it, we'll say it again: Neither Geoff Plant, nor Frank Leonard face ANY
parking fines where they "comply" or not... They are above the law, according
to City Bylaw, and the Highest "Court" in BC.]
READ FOR YOURSELF THE LETTER (below)
FROM Geoff PLANT, REGARDING THE
EXEMPTION OF POLITICIANS, POLICE AND MILITARY
BRASS, TO PARKING LAWS.
Plant claims, in the letter at left, that the issue of law raised is not within
the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. This is complete NONSENSE!
Government (under the Attorney General) governs and creates ALL ACTS dealing
with municipal powers, and it is their duty to make sure municipalities stay
within the boundaries of the so-called SUPREME law, aka Charter of Rights and Freedoms
and Magna Carta.
(Note, in fact, the below photo insert, where Plant addresses questions
to Bill 65, which sets NEW criteria for how municipalities issue alleged bylaw
Do you think the exemptions to MLA's receiving free
parking were dealt with? Should they have been?
Why not write the Minister (who is exempt from
the bylaws remember?) and ask him.
If you are not satisfied with his answer, join
the revolution in the defence of the rule of law.
How much power does it take to clear a driveway? In
Surrey, it takes one Watts.
What is particularly interesting in
all this, is not only did the court ignore the issue before
them as to whether politicians should
receive preferential treatment from the statutes
THEY made out of thin air, but the
local Victoria Media [with the exception of Monday
Magazine] ignored the issue. Instead
they chose to frame the case as someone fighting
the City over a "simple parking
ticket" when it was a Constitutional matter
not only our immutable RIGHT to
free and peaceful use of the Highways, but the
issue of equality before the law.
Now, out of the clear blue, it seems
that CTV in Vancouver is getting the idea that
something is amiss when politicians
see themselves as above the people they took
an oath to serve. Perhaps too, the
public is starting to care?
Check out this clip from CTV
regarding a Surrey Mayor (Dianne Watts) that had her
private driveway ploughed by city
Lower Mainland mayors' China trip broke the law, experts say
It's unlikely that the mayors in question will be penalized, legal specialists say
Is this another example of how our courts are handcuffed and
possibly influenced by corrupt governments, and the judges themselves?
Corporation of the City of Victoria "wins" appeal of million-dollar ruling.
Friday, March 21, 2003
The B.C. Court of Appeal has
overturned a $1-million judgment against the City
Pacific National Investments sued the city over two water lots
on Songhees land in the Inner Harbour.
The company bought the property from the province in the 1980s. The
agreement came with conditions PNI build various services into the property.
PNI planned a three-storey structure over part of the harbour. The project
planned for a main-floor commercial space and two floors of luxury
The city initially rezoned the property in 1987 to allow for the project.
Council "downzoned" it in 1993, eliminating the residential component and
restricting the building to one storey.
That spelled the end of the project and sparked the lawsuit by PNI, which
included a claim of "breach of contract".
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that zoning decisions of municipal
councils aren't binding on future councils.
Though PNI lost the breach-of-contract portion of its lawsuit, a B.C.
Supreme Court justice allowed the company's claim that the city had unlawfully
benefited from installation of services and amenities offered to the city by
The city was ordered to pay just over $1 million as compensation to PNI.
The B.C. Court of Appeal overturned the award.
The decision renewed public concern that the BC Court of Appeal is being
influenced by various levels of local government.