This story, serious as though it is, reminds me of this: The Simpsons Bart Goes to Hell - YouTube
Isn’t the Supreme Court case effectively stating that the pictograph bylaw is unconstitutional? I’d expect that public transportation bylaws, which (at least in the UK) are regulations that have legal force since they’re underpinned by actual legislation, have to go through a certain amount of scrutiny. Signs, not so much. I think the guideline for a lot of the “hold on to handrails” type of signs is that a safety committee thinks that some behaviour is a good idea and wants to encourage it. Someone discounting what is effectively advice, say because they’ve got both hands full, shouldn’t be a finable offence. If the transport authority wants to prohibit a behaviour, as opposed to advise against it, they should create a bylaw sanctioning the prohibition. That bylaw then, at least in theory, would go though a review of its legality before it was enacted.
It’s not like the Independent Order of Daughter of the Empire was founded in the capital of Québec in support of soldiers fighting for the Queen in the Boer War.
More seriously, I think the rent-a-cop picked the wrong person to pick on. She’s preparing for the Ontario Bar exam, and ran for the CPP in the federal election in London, Ontario.
The maladjusted dumb-ass who arrested her could not have picked on a person less likely to accept being illegally arrested.
Imperial Order, muffin. Plus Empire, of course.
But I have a feeling it was likely Anglo Montréal ladies who mainly made up the founding group
Yes, Imperial, not Independent. My memory must be failing. My grandmother and my mother were first Montréal and later Oakville IODE ladies, so I spent a fair bit of time in my youth sitting in when they were short a player for bridge.
Yeh, I can’t imagine many if any Canadiens français were into the IODE. Back when the IODE was being formed, Henri Bourassa, Member of Parliament and founder of le Devoir, was strongly opposed to Canada supporting the British Empire’s wars, did not want any Canadians fighting in the Boer War, and later opposed to conscription for WWI and WWII. I guess he got it from his grandfather, Louis-Joseph Papineau, who was a Lower Canada Member of Parliament who helped write the 92 Resolutions and was key to the Lower Canada 1837 Rebellion for responsible government.
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last step of the rising stairs;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty a cell. Out, out, brief freedom!
Life’s but an escalator with a poor police officer,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
His is a tale told as an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Summary:
A shit-for-brains employer trained a shit-for-brains cop that failing to hold the handrail was illegal when really it was not illegal.
The shit-for-brains cop should have known better, for when a cautionary sign looks like a cautionary sign, waddles like a cautionary sign, and quacks like a cautionary sign, then abductive reasoning should have been used rather than abducting the fine citizen.
[INDENT]Kosoian v. Société de transport de Montréal 2019 SCC 59, http://canlii.ca/t/j3ns9
. . . .
[6] In a free and democratic society, police officers may interfere with the exercise of individual freedoms only to the extent provided for by law. Every person can therefore legitimately expect that police officers who deal with him or her will comply with the law in force, which necessarily requires them to know the statutes, regulations and by laws they are called upon to enforce. Police officers are thus obliged to have an adequate knowledge and understanding of the statutes, regulations and by laws they have to enforce. Police forces and municipal bodies have a correlative obligation to provide police officers with proper training, including with respect to the law in force. Under Quebec law, a breach of these obligations may, depending on the circumstances, constitute a civil fault.
. . . .
[60] As professionals responsible for law enforcement, police officers must be able to exercise judgment with respect to the applicable law. They cannot rely blindly on the training and instructions given to them, nor can they mechanically follow internal policies, directives and procedures or usual police practices.
[61] Similarly, it is well established that police officers cannot avoid personal civil liability simply by arguing that they were merely carrying out an order that they knew or ought to have known was unlawful (Chartier, at p. 498; Chaput v. Romain, [1955] S.C.R. 834, at p. 842; Pelletier v. Cour du Québec, [2002] R.J.Q. 2215 (C.A.), at para. 37; Lacroix, “Responsabilité civile des forces policières”, at para. 16). [/INDENT]
I think that last one – not avoiding personal civil liability when carrying out unlawful orders – is very important. “I was just following orders” normalizes unaccountability which, if left uncorrected, can lead to the normalization of atrocities.
I was tickled that clause 4(e) is part of Subsection I - Civic Spirit. I’ve never heard of a violation of Civic Spirit before. The rest of the list seems to be aimed at vagrants, vandals, and jerks. It’s a Don’t Be a Jerk bylaw!
Then I noticed that what’s posted on the web is not a bylaw, it’s the ADMINISTRATIVE CONSOLIDATION OF BY-LAW R-036.
I wonder if it loses something in translation or if unsupported pictographs have been made unenforceable.
-
The mandate of the police is to enforce the law. They need to know and understand the law to do this. An understanding of when to give a gentle warning would be good. In fairness, in my experience police do know the law. The majority of cops are reasonable. Many are outstanding individuals, especially the modest ones.
-
When I was a student in Montreal, it was commonplace for people to get drunk and use the very long metallic space between the up and down escalators as a giant slide. This may violate by-laws. I know two people who broke ankles, since some of the Montreal metro escalators are the equivalent of four stories and take 2-3 minutes to ascend. They ended up installing metal bumps to discourage this.
-
The Supreme Court finding makes sense. Dividing liability between the metro and officer makes sense. I presume police have liability insurance they pay for and that personal payments come from this. If not, they should. Although I don’t agree with the actions given this side of the story, personally charging police for enforcing laws should require more severe misconduct than this. I am not an apologist, but even the police make mistakes, and one needs to look at them in broader context.