It’s not quite like that. The apportionment of fault is 50% with the officer, and 50% with the Métro. That’s the Court’s assessment of how much each party’s actions contributed to the outcome.
But the officer, the Métro and the city are liable solidarily. That’s the civil law equivalent of “joint and several liability”. Any one of them is liable to pay the full damages to the plaintiff, and then as amongst the three of them, the fault is apportioned. The officer may have an indemnity clause in his employment contract (probably a collective agreement), in which case he may not have to pay anything personally.
Reminds me of something in New York City quite a few years back.
A while back, we had an unpleasant and dictatorial mayor. You may have heard of him, since he’s back in the news lately. His name is Rudy Giuliani.
One thing just about everyone knows is that jaywalking is normal behavior here, and there is no penalty whatsoever for crossing a street when the light is red (other than being obliterated by a motor vehicle if you get the timing wrong, of course). This isn’t Los Angeles.
This kind of disorderly conduct did not sit well with Rudy, so he ordered the police department to ticket jaywalkers.
The police department did not issue any tickets.
Reporters for the city’s tabloid papers (the Daily News and the Post) thought it would be fun to get the first ticket, and so would go to busy streets, like Fifth Avenue, and cross against the light right in front of police officers.
Still no tickets.
One reporter finally asked a cop why he wouldn’t write a ticket, and the cop replied that they hadn’t been able to find a statute under which they could write such a ticket.
I could probably dig up a cite if I wanted to spend an hour or so going through back issues of the News and the Post (assuming stuff that old is online), but I’m not going to. But I distinctly remember the story.
I would be inclined to agree with the SCC on appeal, but at trial, I’d want to hear testimony from the officer. Did he actually and credibly believe, in good faith (for instance, on the basis of his training), that she was legally required to obey the pictograph? Not sure how she came up with $20k in damages, either. The dismissal of the charge by the trial judge is perhaps vindication enough. But monetary damages and a tongue-lashing from the SCC would certainly get the STM’s attention, and force a change in policy, in a way that nothing else would.
The case is ridiculous. But the lower courts felt the police were acting in good faith. It may seem obvious that acting in good faith means obeying and respecting the law and civil rights, but apparently this is not obvious to everybody and may be open to contention. The article I read implied this would set a precedent. Of course it will.
To gain a driver’s licence, one must pass a test indicating adequate knowledge of traffic laws. The state driver’s manual likely lists penalties. Obey or pay.
I’m not aware that transit riders are licensed. True, pedestrians mostly go unlicensed but must also obey signals like a red DON’T WALK light. Individual pedestrian violators are more likely squashed than cited for their sins - except that day I spent jailed in L.A. for crossing an empty avenue mid-block. :smack:
IMHO a pictograph carries legal weight IFF it reflects actual legislation, not merely semi-voluntary behavioral standards. I’ll imagine an elevator with an image of eight stick figures in a barred red circle to reflect a legal limit of seven adults capacity. But a red-barred farting stick figure probably doesn’t illustrate a law.
I’m wondering if there are laws which do not stand by themselves. In other words, are there laws that require the posting of a sign?
To give an example, could a town impose a 25 mph speed limit on its main street and then choose to not post a sign indicating this speed limit? And then hand out speeding tickets? People would obviously complain about no sign being posted but could the town argue that the law is part of the public record and is therefore enforceable even if there are no public warnings about it?
I think the states all have default speed limits for roads when there are no signs. This is a traffic law all licensed drivers are supposed to know about, along with a number of others.
In Providence RI you can’t park on the street overnight but there are no signs that say so. Tickets given to non-residents are readily dismissed though.
This misses the point. The fact that some pictographs do represent laws does not mean that by creating a pictograph you can create a law. Actually, I can see a judge stating that.
It may be about whether a pictograph is a law, but the Court’s decision includes a very interesting paragraph.
I was a bit surprised by the presence and wording of the last sentence above, but found it very reassuring. In addition to reaffirming the sanctity of freedom of movement, I think the justices are taking a pre-emptive stand against corporate (and other) digital tracking. Why else bring it up? The case was not about privacy. Indeed, the word ‘privacy’ only occurs twice in the judgment, once in the very last line of the ‘summary’ as above (almost as a non sequitur) and again at the end of the numbered notes, using identical language.
I think the laws are, in general, reassuring. But you may be reading too much into the last bit, which is more about the person being detained.
The police have a very difficult job. Though this case is regrettable, it would be wrong to force the officer to pay out of his personal pocket in this case. But the officers should know and enforce the law, not suggestions. What percent of people hold onto the handrail of a mall escalator?
Any sign not meeting that exact criteria has no weight of law supporting it, including pictograms.
There are also similar laws concerning open carry (30.07) and carrying in bars (51%).
The management can also tell you personally that weapons are not permitted, but can only call the police with a trespass complaint if you refuse to leave.
The decision seems to make this a central issue of the case. Apparently the officer had been instructed in his official training that the pictograms were enforceable laws. This is not true; they are merely warnings.
I think in the United States this would be enough to indemnify the officer. Even if he had acted wrongly, the fault would be on the agency that had trained him incorrectly rather than on him as an individual.
From reading the opinion, this does not appear to be the case in Canada. The decision seems to be saying that even if the officer had been trained to do this, he still had a responsibility to have an overall knowledge of the law and citizen rights and recognize situations where he had been trained incorrectly.
Yes and no. The “law” in question is not a proper provincial or federal law at all; it is merely a by-law of a municipal agency.
I had a look at the STM (Société de transport de Montréal) by-law R-036 (link here), and it does indicate that ignoring a pictogram is a violation of the by-law. From the link:
Further, under s. 26 of the by-law, anyone contravening s. 4(e) is liable to a fine of $75 to $500.
So, the by-law is enforceable, and based on the facts and the by-law and the pictogram, the woman contravened the by-law. Though she may have technically contravened the STM’s By-Law R-026 (as, no doubt, thousands of Montrealers do every day), the woman in Montreal did not deserve the treatment she suffered at the hands of an overzealous transit officer. I have not yet read the SCC’s decision, but I’d suggest that the officer’s actions towards the woman were what was at issue before the Courts, not whether the woman broke a rule in the Montréal Métro. Handcuffs and impeding freedom of movement (a guarantee under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms) are permitted in appropriate circumstances, but are a little much for a municipal by-law that carries a maximum $500 fine and does not fit the definition of “appropriate circumstances.”
