Agreed, and hence my earlier post. In a similar American case the officer would almost certainly not be personally liable under sovereign immunity (and, depending upon the wording of the applicable law, neither the transit authority nor the city either, for that matter).
This means that in a municipality or a built up area in Ontario the speed limit of 50 kph does not have to be posted. In practice, it usually, but not always, is posted.
In my experience when driving in Ontario, there’s a sign that says “50 km/h [30 mph] unless otherwise posted” at the entrance to a city or town; or at an off-ramp from a freeway. Major arterials in cities tend to be 60 km/h [35 mph], and residential streets tend to be 40 km/h [25 mph], or lower in school zones, and all are well-posted. But the “50 km/h unless otherwise posted” is enforced–just look at Bayview northbound, north of Lawrence, in Toronto. One of Toronto’s favourite speed traps. 
It’s a good idea for signs that are informing the reader that they are mandatory, to indicate that mandatory nature somehow - for example speed limit signs in the UK are encircled in red if they are mandatory (other speed signs such as these, lacking the red circle, are advisory only). As road users are absolutely required to learn, understand and know this for their driving test, it is quite reasonable to treat the signs as law.
In the case of safety pictographs in the scenario of the OP, there is no such overarching control structure (there is no mandatory test to use public transport), so the signs alone would never be enough (unless the signs themselves somehow properly conveyed their own mandatory nature by means of accompanying text or some other means)
Sovereign immunity is much narrower in Canada. We call it “Crown immunity” because it only applies to direct delegates of the Crown, namely the federal and provincial governments (ie executive branches). Municipalités and municipal agencies, like the Métro and Métro cops, can’t claim Crown immunity.
I should mention that according to the reports I’ve seen of this court case, the police officer in question is not a “Métro cop” (from what I can tell, the Montreal Metro has inspectors, but they aren’t considered police officers), but an officer from the Laval municipal police department. Which doesn’t change your argument in this case, but maybe it could have an effect in some other case.
He was a police officer, but he’d been designated as a Metro inspector by the STM, which is what triggered liability for both Ville de Laval and the STM, I think.
I’d be interested to know why you need to hear whether the officer believed, in good faith, that he was doing the right thing? Why does that matter, in terms of deciding whether the woman had a case?
I can possibly see this being an issue in determining who was actually liable for the injury to the woman (i.e., the violation of her rights). If, for example, the officer was told by his superiors and his employer that the pictograph had the force of law, then it’s not really his fault if he uses that information as a basis for his actions.
But it seems to me that her rights were violated whether or not it was done in good faith. If the officer had been told unequivocally that he should enforce all pictographs as statutes, that might mitigate some or all of his own culpability, but it in no way mitigates the violation of the woman’s rights, or the harm she suffered as a result. I think we already give law enforcement officers (at least in the US) too much leeway for their “good faith” mistakes that just happen to violate people’s constitutional rights.
You’re the judge, not me, by my understanding is that the most likely way for the officer to evade personal liability for something like this in the United States is not sovereign immunity, but qualified immunity. Under Section 1983 of the government code, government employees in the United States can be sued, on an individual basis, for violating a person’s constitutional rights, but the doctrine of qualified immunity (made up out of whole cloth by an excessively deferential judiciary, IMO) says that the right must be “clearly established” by prior cases.
I understand that qualified immunity is, in some important ways, basically a subset of sovereign immunity, but I think it’s worth distinguishing the two things. If this case had happened in the United States, I’m not actually sure what a court would have ruled, partly because I’m not familiar with every possible precedent, and federal courts can get incredibly specific with the type of precedent required for a constitutional right to be “clearly established.”
At the very least, I wouldn’t be surprised if a US court ruled along the lines of: “Yes, her constitutional rights were violated, but we haven’t had a case before where an officer believed that a pictograph had the force of law, so her right not to be arrested for ignoring a pictograph was not clearly established and we’re going to grant qualified immunity in this case.” And if anyone thinks I’m joking about how specific these precedents sometimes have to be, go and look up some of the more baffling qualified immunity cases.
Me too. Wonderful write-up, Northern Piper.
~Max
Laws that govern behavior that you wouldn’t be able to intuit without the presence of a sign, like parking, often do require the posting of a sign.
There was a fairly humorous case in Santa Barbara a few years ago where A man hired by the city to put up parking restriction signs was ticketed for violating the restriction on the signs he had just erected. My google-fu is failing, but he did end up winning his appeal, since the restriction was not properly indicated by signage when he parked.
You use your vocab when you write dialogue, and I’ll use mine. 
Hunting on posted land is a local example. If Elmer Fudd goes hunting on a farmer’s field, he may be trespassing, but maybe not, depending on his understanding of local custom.
But if the farmer posts his lands, then Fudd is committing a wildlife offence if he goes on the land to hunt.
Yeah, she probably said something like, “maudit crisse de tabernac!” ( Pardon my French. 
)
I’d suggest that in any province of this country, “F**k you, dude” is universally understood.
Don’t forget to add “eh” at the end, eh.
I don’t care what nonsense the cop decided he believed. He was not enforcing an actual law, and police making up their own laws, then arresting (or detaining, or ticketing, or whatever) police for them is something I object to very strongly. The fact that people are fine with the police just making up laws out of thin air boggles my mind.
I figured that things like symbols and pictographs indicate that general (or maybe more specific) safety measures be taken. Showing someone holding a rail implies that you should stay still, don’t be reckless, take caution, etc. There doesn’t seem to be an issue with this woman flailing around, causing harm to herself or others, or generally being reckless. So…why did Mr. Metro Cop have such a hard-on for arresting her? Seems insanely petty to me.
It’s like if I’m changing the music in my car and all over the road as a result, I should and will be pulled over for reckless driving. If I’m changing my music and still driving safely, yet a cop sees me, should I get pulled over? Is that fair? I don’t think so, if I’m obviously not causing a problem.
Some do, some don’t. They don’t where I live (on the boundary between two Ontario municipalities at the top of the Blues Highway).
Concerning pictographs and the law, here are some Ontario examples of how a pictograph could communicate a law:
So it looks like I was wrong when I used to think that a red circles and yellow circles were hiking trail markers. My bad.
The moral of the story is that a pictograph is not a law unless it communicates a law. In the escalator example, there was no law, so the pictograph was not communicating a law.
One can imagine a law that says something like “Riders of the Metro must obey all posted safety warnings”, or the like, and then the courts could reasonably decide that the pictograph of a person holding the rail was a posted safety warning, and that a passenger not holding the rail was therefore not obeying that warning, and thus breaking the law. One can imagine such a law, but it appears in this case that that would only be one’s imagination.
Aside: Ohio has a law (Ohio Revised Code 1711.551) concerning amusement park rides that says, in part, that riders must obey all directions from the ride operator concerning the ride, and that failure to comply is a misdemeanor. Back when I worked as a ride operator as a summer job, I had a safety schpiel I gave before every ride, which I concluded by saying “And the most important rule is to have fun!”. Which means that, technically, any kid on my ride who wasn’t having fun was committing a misdemeanor.
One can imagine a law that says something like “Riders of the Metro must obey all posted safety warnings”, or the like, and then the courts could reasonably decide that the pictograph of a person holding the rail was a posted safety warning, and that a passenger not holding the rail was therefore not obeying that warning, and thus breaking the law. One can imagine such a law, but it appears in this case that that would only be one’s imagination.
Aside: Ohio has a law (Ohio Revised Code 1711.551) concerning amusement park rides that says, in part, that riders must obey all directions from the ride operator concerning the ride, and that failure to comply is a misdemeanor. Back when I worked as a ride operator as a summer job, I had a safety schpiel I gave before every ride, which I concluded by saying “And the most important rule is to have fun!”. Which means that, technically, any kid on my ride who wasn’t having fun was committing a misdemeanor.