Supreme Court of Canada : "A pictograph is not a law"

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

In the bloody obvious category, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that a pictograph is not a law.

The story:

  1. Woman is on the escalator for the Montréal Métro. She’s fumbling in her purse for her Métro pass and NOT HOLDING ON TO THE HANDRAIL! Quel horreur!

  2. Métro cop points to a pictograph saying “Caution” and showing the person holding the handrail. “Madam, hold the handrail! It’s the law! Look at the pictograph!”

  3. Madam says: “No, I’m trying to get my Métro pass out.”

  4. Métro cop: “You’re breaking the law, Madame. You’re under arrest! Name!”

  5. Woman: “You’ve got to be kidding me! Sod this!”

  6. Métro cop: “In addition to not following the law requiring you to hold the handrail, as depicted on the pictograph, you are now obstructing a Métro officer (moi-même) in the execution of his duty! That’s a second charge!”

  7. Woman: “What?!?”

  8. Métro cop: “Hold out your hands for the handcuffs!”

  9. Woman: “WHAT?!?”

  10. Métro cop cuffs her, searches her purse, gets her name, issues a ticket. “Voici, Madame. Your court date is on the ticket. You are now free to go. Please obey pictographs from now on.”

So Madame goes to court and demands to know under what law she is charged.

“Failure to obey a pictograph” says the prosecutor.

“What law says I have to follow the pictograph?” she asks.

Prosecutor shuffles papers, mumbles a bit about safety on Métro escalators, etc.

Judge: “it appears there is no law requiring Métro users to obey pictographs. Charge dismissed.”

Madame then sues the Métro cop, the Métro and the city for false arrest, claiming $20,000 in damages.

And the Quebec courts dismiss her claim.

Yes, they agree that there is no law making compliance with pictographs a legal duty, but, well, she should have been holding the handrail for safety reasons, and really, she’s the author of her own misfortune. The poor Métro cop was just trying to preserve safety, and he thought there was a law, so she should have listenened to him. Civil claim dismissed at trial and by the Quebec Court of Appeal.

Madame appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada, which in measured tones and elaborate legal reasoning says: “ARE YOU GUYS FREAKING KIDDING!?! A PICTOGRAPH IS NOT A LAW!!!”

SCC holds the cop, the Métro and the city liable en solidaire for $20,000, and rakes the Quebec courts over the coals, explaining through gritted teeth and with excessive politeness that YOU CAN’T BE ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF A LAW THAT DOESN’T EXIST, even if there’s a pictograph suggesting it’s a good idea to hold the handrail.

Words fail me. (And yes, the dialogue above is my take on how it went down.)

2

Same for the don’t walk” symbol I would think. Depending on how the law is written.

3

Wow!

4

I know that this is Serious Business and all that (and truthfully as dumb as it sounds it really is serious)

But I giggled like a child

5

Reminds me of this:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=don't+lay+no+boogie+woogie+on+king+of+rock+lyrics+long+john&view=detail&mid=1307F83724016AC285F51307F83724016AC285F5&FORM=VIRE0

6

The cop may have had a valid point.

Yes, the pictograph is not a law. But a pictograph may be a means by which the government informs people of a law.

If I get a ticket for driving too fast, it’s not because I wasn’t obeying the speed limit sign. It’s because I wasn’t obeying the speed limit that was set by a local law. The speed limit sign isn’t a law but it depicts a law.

7

I’ve always felt that pictographs like that should have no force of law unless accompanied by the corresponding message in words, and then it should be the words, not the pictograph, that matter. Pictographs are too easily misunderstood.

Example: I went hiking on a trail once. At the trailhead, there was a pictograph clearly showing a hiker wearing a backpack, inside a red circle with a red slash across it. I took it to mean “No backpacking.” In fact, it meant “Trail Closed”, as I found out when I encountered a park cop on horseback, a ways up the trail, shooing hikers out.

The pictographs painted in the streets, in particular the arrows on the pavement in each lane as one approaches an intersection, should have no force for another reason: It happens too often that one can’t see them because the car in front of you is right on top of it. Or, in a parking space with a wheelchair pictograph, your own car is parked right on top of it. (These handicapped parking spots also have a sign posted, which is where the force of law should reside.)

8

I saw that on the TV news, and couldn’t believe that the Montreal Metro cop did what he did. As the TV news anchor remarked, “What, was he going to come up short on his monthly quota of tickets, so he was looking for any excuse to write some?”

9

However in this particular case the point was that there was no law to communicate to begin with. An actual law is in the books saying we must obey the posted speed limit and the traffic movement signals (or the lighted signs in the airliner).

The effectiveness of the icon is a matter for the regulatory body to assess and the law/regulation can provide if the sign is good enough without words.

10

I agree. In this particular case, the cop was wrong. But he wasn’t wrong because he was enforcing a pictograph. He was wrong because he was enforcing a law he had made up.

If the pictograph hadn’t existed and the cop had just decided to tell people it was illegal to ride the escalator without holding on to the handrail, the legal issues would have been the same. The pictograph really wasn’t relevant to the case.

11

Canadian governments and public agencies tend to use pictographs a lot so signage doesn’t have to be bilingual (or multi-lingual, in the territories, where there are more than two official languages.) using just one language can open up issues of comprehension.

12

For the record, I like your version better. Well done!

13

Solution: A new national law saying “Obey all pictographs or else”, and then the work OBEY! stenciled under each image nationwide. If OBEY! is missing, you’re innocent.

14

How did she suffer $20,000 in actual damages?

15

Probably doesn’t cover the legal costs, for one. And for two, she was arrested for no cause.

I especially like the bit where the cop is personally responsible for half the damages, pour encourager les autres.

16

Or indeed this:

17

Ah, but there is legal analysis beyond what Northern Piper narrated in the OP. There are, in fact, pictographs in the Metro which describe laws. “‘The pictogram appears on a yellow background. It is well known that this colour generally corresponds to a warning,’ Côté said. She contrasted this with other kinds of pictograms that do constitute a prohibition: for instance, those that have a small red circle and a diagonal red bar, or those with a drawing of a judge’s gavel with the amount of a fine specifically indicated.”[sup]1[/sup]

18

Well, it wasn’t like he just arbitrarily decided to make up a law out of thin air so he could issue a ticket. That would just be corrupt. It’s even worse. He believed that the pictograph itself effected a law. That shows a fundamentally flawed (and childish) understanding of legal legitimacy, and clearly defective training on the part of the transit authority. That’s why the court also ruled against the transit authority and the city.

19

Do the pictographs cite the laws? In my forty or fifty years of riding Toronto subways, buses, and streetcars; I recall many pictographs prohibiting or allowing actions, but always tagged with “TTC [Toronto Transit Commission] Bylaw No. 1.” Does the same happen in Montreal?

20

From the decision (Kosoian v. Société de transport de Montréal, 2019 SCC 59)