IV. CONCLUSIONS2017-03-03T18:35:01+00:00

While Regulations 333/07 and 611/06 under the Municipal Act and City of Toronto Act respectively, meet minimum standards of constitutional law, they could achieve greater compliance if a base penalty was set, with the ability of the AMPS enforcement officer, in the case of previous non-compliance history, to increase the initial AMP by a pre-set percentile . Similarly, legitimate expectations of fairness could be better achieved if reviewing officers have the ability to reduce the AMP by a pre-set percentile upon any ground that the reviewing officers considered warranted such a reduction. Written representations should be considered as a means of challenging an AMP thereby relieving both recipients of AMPS and the reviewing officers of setting aside time for personal attendance. 

Finally, if as is presented in this report, AMPS offer an efficient, fair and economical way of achieving compliance with parking infractions, there should be no need for any concurrent prosecution option under the Provincial Offences Act.  Municipalities in more remote areas of the Province may understandably object that they do not have either the demand or the resources to accommodate this new program and would prefer to rely on the existing system of relying on the police and justices of the peace. The Municipal Act however, should provide some relief as it permits a municipality to enter into an agreement with one or more municipalities or local bodies, including local authorities, to jointly provide for their joint benefit, services which they would have the power to provide within their own boundaries.[110] To put it more simply, municipalities can use the enforcement officers, notification forms, communications systems, computer data bases and reviewing officers of other municipalities, whether neighbouring or not  provided there is agreement between the municipalities involved. 

With respect to sub-section 3(3) of the AMPS Regulations under both the Municipal Act and City of Toronto Act which prohibit the designated AMPS by-law from applying to its system of disabled parking, a distinct  and higher base penalty could be added to reflect the significance attached to non-compliance with disabled parking requirements . As noted in the flying tire case,[111] the significance of the contravention and the stigma attached to it does not, in and of itself dictate greater safeguards under the Charter of Rights. If however, in the case of disabled parking, remedial orders are required or imprisonment should, as a matter of public policy, be considered an alternative, AMPS would have to remain inapplicable both as a matter of public policy and because any real risk of imprisonment would open AMPS to serious constitutional challenge. Disabled parking could be subject to Part III of the Provincial Offences Act.

 

Previous  Next
First Page  Last Page
Table of Contents